Court Opinion

ID: 9543706
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:48:26.800224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:59.145054
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice.
I concur in the result. However, the majority opinion asserts that plaintiff finds himself on the horns of a dilemma both of which find him impaled by contributory negligence. The second horn was that it was
“so dark that he could not see an object such as a chair, in which event due care would have required him to turn on the light.”
In such event his failure to turn on the light was contributory negligence committed before he broke his toe, and hence would disallow recovery no matter what object in the dark physically was responsible for the injury. Hence I cannot subscribe to what appears to me to be an inconsistent statement in the main opinion when it is said that
“If he had stumbled over a box, a ladder, or some other strange object not reasonably to be expected in the room, the situation might have been quite different”,
—an assertion which to the writer, emasculates the basis upon which the decision was rendered.