Court Opinion

ID: 9696446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:48:11.394524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:22.452475
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion reversing the District Court’s directed verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of his contributory negligence.
The majority feels that reasonable minds could differ as to whether Mr. Sullivan was negligent in descending the steps, since he did not see the bolt before he stepped on it. However, even as the majority notes, “25 or 30 workmen were on the job, and it may be inferred that they negotiated the steps safely.” The fact that there were no falls on these steps on December 14, 1972, prior to plaintiff’s fall would lead him to assume, and reasonably so, that no greater amount of care was necessary in his descent of the icy steps than the precautions which he did take, i.e., a slow descent and gripping the handrail tightly, as the District Court noted; that even though he slipped, he did not fall but maintained his balance when his foot hit the next step. While the previous 25 or 30 descents may have loosened the bolt sufficiently to cause it to break free during Mr. Sullivan’s descent, this does not suggest Sullivan’s negligence but relates to the undisputed negligence of defendant Lueder in allowing the bolt to be on the steps in the first place. Therefore, I would affirm the District Court on the issue of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence.
Krivosha, C.J., joins in this dissent.