Court Opinion

ID: 9733242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:59:51.789751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:39.885882
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Montgomery, J.:
What, in fact, the majority is doing in this case is legislating out of existence the long established rule that one who, in broad daylight, walks into an obvious and exposed defect in a sidewalk is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and may not recover. If one can' avoid the application of the rule by saying he was distracted because he heard a noise like the screeching of brakes, he may excuse his inattention for any other reason regardless how trivial. In my opinion, this claimant should be charged with the responsibility of attentiveness rather than excused because of her curiosity.
I dissent.
Woodside, J., joins in this dissent.