Court Opinion

ID: 9630511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:12:36.330589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:39.378918
License: Public Domain

Mowbray, J.,
dissenting:
Respectfully, I dissent. Horvath seeks reversal principally on the grounds that the district judge erred in instructing the jury on (1) the landlord’s duty to repair the premises and (2) in giving the jury a contributory negligence instruction. In my opinion, the court did not commit reversible error.
1. Horvath claimed that a landlord’s liability for injuries sustained by tenants due to defects in the leased premises should be predicated on strict liability rather than negligence. The trial judge rejected the strict liability theory and instructed the jury that the landlord’s liability was predicated on negligence. It is the rule that liability is imposed only when the landlord has notice of the defect and an opportunity to correct it, or failed to exercise ordinary care in inspecting for defects. Morris v. Oney, 32 Cal.Rptr. 88 (Ct.App. 1963); Henderson v. W. C. Haas Realty Management, Inc., 561 S.W.2d 382 (Mo.App. 1977); Sheehan v. 535 North Water Street, 67 N.W.2d 273 (Wis. 1954). The court properly instructed the jury on the duty to repair.
2. As the majority opinion points out, the existence of contributory negligence is a question of fact. It becomes a question of law only when the evidence will support no other inference. Wagon Wheel v. Mavrogan, 78 Nev. 126, 128, 369 P.2d 688 (1962); Carter v. City of Fallon, 54 Nev. 195, 201, 11 P.2d 817 (1932).
Officer Cordelia testified that he arrived early at the scene of the fire and shouted to the tenants in the upper story windows not to jump because the fire trucks were only a half a block away. When he returned seconds later with a ladder, the other tenants were rescued safely, but Horvath had already jumped.1 *191He did not at the time identify Horvath but she apparently was the only tenant who jumped. Horvath testified that while she was still standing in her apartment she saw an officer go by looking for a ladder and that she knew that if she jumped she would be injured.
The issue is not, as the majority opinion frames it, whether the evidence clearly shows that Officer Cordelia positively identified Horvath in the window, or specifically warned her not to jump. The issue is whether the evidence could support a reasonable inference in the mind of a juror that Horvath, having been warned, jumped unnecessarily and thus contributed to her own injuries. The evidence supports such an inference.
The district court adequately instructed the jury that one in imminent peril is not held to the same standard of reasonable care as one acting under normal conditions.2 The fact that Horvath was frightened and under great stress does not make the giving of the contributory negligence instruction erroneous.3
*192Horvath has suffered a tragic accident. However, she was given a fair opportunity to present her case to a jury. The jury found against her. No reversible error occurred at the trial. I would affirm the judgment of the district court.

Officer Cordelia testified as follows:
MR. HILL: Okay. When you ran towards the home, did you have an opportunity to observe some people in the window on the northeast corner of the building?
OFFICER CORDELLA: I did.
MR. HILL: Okay. And did you shout any instruction to those people in the windows?
OFFICER CORDELLA: Upon my arrival, I noted the entire structure to be engulfed. The people in the corner of the building were screaming for help and—
MR. HILL: What did you tell them?
OFFICER CORDELLA: I advised to the best of my memory— I didn’t make any notes at the time — for the people to wait, we were *191going to get help, that the Fire Department was less than half a block away.
MR. HILL: And what did you do after that?
OFFICER CORDELLA: I headed towards the rear of the building looking for a ladder or something for the people to exit the building with.
MR. HILL: And did you, in fact, find a ladder?
OFFICER CORDELLA: Yes, I did.
MR. HILL: And did you return with it to that scene?
OFFICER CORDELLA: I found a ladder laying in the back on the grass. I picked it up, ran towards the front, leaned it up against the building and people began coming down.
MR. HILL: And how long did it take you to get from the area where the people were yelling for help to the back part of the building and back up in front?
OFFICER CORDELLA: Close estimate of five to ten seconds.
MR. HILL: And at that time did you happen to notice an older woman on the ground at that time?
OFFICER CORDELLA: I believe while going through, I did not, but upon coming back with the ladder, I did.
MR. HILL: So if I understand your testimony, she was not on the ground when you yelled up that help was coming. Ten seconds later you returned with the ladder and at that time she was on the ground.
OFFICER CORDELLA: Yes.

Instruction No. 16:
Where one without fault of his own is placed in a position of great mental stress or sudden emergency, the same degree of judgment and care is not required of him as is required of one who is acting under normal conditions. The test to be applied is whether or not the person in such a position of great mental stress or sudden emergency did or attempted to do what a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances.

It appears that the jury’s verdict was predicated on a finding that the landlord was not negligent, not on a finding of contributory negligence. *192Just prior to reaching the defense verdict, the jury requested additional instructions defining “reasonable inspection.” This suggests that the jury was more concerned with the landlord’s duty than with Horvath’s contributory negligence.