Court Opinion

ID: 9532372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:20:45.007383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:44.992031
License: Public Domain

Price, C. J.,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from subdivision (1) of the syllabus and the corresponding portion of the opinion.
Plaintiff was no novice in matters of this kind. He was an ex*709perienced architect, and a part of his duties was to inspect progress of construction on buildings designed by him and his firm. That was his business, and was what he was doing at the time he was injured. He had made many inspections of structures at various stages of construction and completion, and was thoroughly familiar with the many hazards to be encountered in partially completed buildings. If there was sufficient light at the time and place in question he is presumed to have seen what was in plain view to be seen. If the light was insufficient then it was negligence to proceed in the darkness. In my opinion the trial court made proper disposition of this case and I would affirm the judgment.
Schroeder, J., joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.