Opinion ID: 1964909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Assumption of the Risk and Looking But Failing to See

Text: The defendant contends that the trial justice should have instructed the jury on both the doctrine of assumption of the risk and the looking but failing to see doctrine. That assertion has no merit. Concerning his assumption of the risk contention, there is absolutely no evidence in the record showing that the plaintiff ever was aware that the elevator had not arrived at the fourth floor, nor that he appreciated the danger created by his opening of the elevator door but nevertheless, knowingly assumed the risk of his injuries by stepping into what he believed to be the elevator. See Lang v. The Red Parrot, Inc., 746 A.2d 142 (R.I.2000) (per curiam). Consequently, an assumption of the risk defense was unavailable to the defendant. The doctrine of looking but failing to see, likewise, is inapplicable in this case setting. That doctrine had been applied in cases where a plaintiff's contributory negligence, if proven, would preclude recovery as a matter of law. See Kennedy v. N.Y., N.H. & H.R.R. Co., 43 R.I. 358, 112 A. 429 (1921); Beerman v. Union R.R. Co., 24 R.I. 275, 52 A. 1090 (1902). The last case to address the doctrine was decided in 1970. See Ionata v. Groise, 107 R.I. 478, 268 A.2d 444 (1970). In 1971, the Legislature enacted G.L.1956 § 9-20-4 (P.L.1971, ch. 206, § 1). This abolished the affirmative defense of contributory negligence, substituting in its place comparative00457B negligence, which no longer bars a plaintiff's action. Contributory negligence, and what remains of the doctrine of looking but failing to see have lost their fatal sting. They are relevant today only for purposes of proving that a plaintiff or a defendant, at the time of the incident giving rise to the action, was not acting in a reasonable and prudent manner. Thus, in this jurisdiction, the net effect of what is formally termed contributory negligence, and what is now a plaintiff's comparative negligence, as well as of what is left of the looking but failing to see doctrine, is essentially the same; namely, they both serve to either lessen a plaintiff's recovery or to increase a defendant's liability. Consequently, neither serve as a bar to a plaintiff's cause of action, as sought here by the defendant.