Court Opinion

ID: 9709790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:54:45.539903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:51.491823
License: Public Domain

FLAHERTY, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority but write separately to emphasize that plaintiff is barred from recovery because the possessor of land owed no duty to protect from an obvious hazard, not because plaintiff assumed a risk. As was observed in Rutter v. Northeastern Beaver County School District, 496 Pa. 590, 437 A.2d 1198 (1981), where a plaintiff, as here, subjects herself without any justification to the danger of injury, the proper disposition of the case is “the court’s determination that, as a matter of law, defendant owed plaintiff no duty....” supra, 496 Pa. at 613, 437 A.2d at 1209.
*190Indeed, as was noted in Rutter, supra, 496 Pa. at 614 n. 6, 437 A.2d at 1210 n. 6, the retention of an “assumption of risk” analysis in cases governed by our comparative negligence statute (as Rutter was not) would be inimical to the purposes of a comparative negligence system.
LARSEN, J., joins this Opinion.