Court Opinion

ID: 9566137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:34:17.378655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:14.744975
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE CARRICO,
dissenting.
I would hold the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and, therefore, would reverse the judgment of the trial court. As the majority notes, the plaintiff did not see the muffler before she tripped over it, although, as the majority also notes, it “ ‘was out there [on the sidewalk] in plain view.’ ” The plaintiff admitted she did not look down as she walked across the sidewalk. It is true, however, as the majority states, that a pedestrian’s failure to look down while stepping forward does not, as a matter of law, constitute contributory negligence in every case. But such failure is “one of many facts to be considered” in determining whether a plaintiffs alleged contributory negligence presents a jury issue. City of Suffolk v. Hewitt, 226 Va. 20, 28, 307 S.E.2d 444, 449 (1983).
Also to be considered, in my opinion, is whether a plaintiff who claims to have been distracted has “establish [ed] that his excuse for inattention was reasonable, i.e., that the distraction was unexpected and substantial.” West v. City of Portsmouth, 217 Va. 734, 737, 232 S.E.2d 763, 765 (1977). “To hold otherwise would permit a plaintiff in any case to avoid contributory negligence by showing an insignificant reason for failing to be observant.” Id.
Here, the plaintiff offered no excuse whatsoever for her failure to see the muffler on the sidewalk ahead of her. The majority, however, overlooks this shortcoming on the part of the plaintiff and combs the record to find an excuse for her, citing the lighting, weather conditions, and presence of co-workers on the sidewalk at the time she fell. Yet, while the majority states that the intensity of the lighting at the time of the accident was described as “dim,” the majority also says that the sidewalk was “lit by a bank of fluorescent lights located in an overhanging canopy.” And, although the majority points out that it was raining at the time and that there was water on the sidewalk where the plaintiff fell, the majority correctly states that the fall occurred underneath the *269sidewalk canopy, neutralizing any effect the rain may have had on the plaintiffs ability to see.*
Interestingly, the majority also cites the presence of “[sjome” of the plaintiffs co-workers on the sidewalk “ ‘[a] few steps’ in front of [her].” But the majority has to admit that “none of [these] employees . . . tripped on the muffler.” Perforce, these employees had to step over the muffler or walk around it, leaving it exposed, in either event, to the view of anyone walking behind them, including the plaintiff.
So, even if the plaintiff was distracted, the distraction was neither “unexpected [nor] substantial” and amounted to nothing more than “an insignificant reason for failing to be observant.” West, 217 Va. at 737, 232 S.E.2d at 765. Hence, the plaintiff failed to “establish that [her] excuse for inattention was reasonable,” id., and I would hold that her failure bars her recovery.

 The majority also says it was very windy on the night the plaintiff fell but does not explain how the wind may have contributed to the fall.