Rush v. Commercial Realty case brief summary
F: P was tenants of the D. P lived in and the adjoining house, including the common bathroom that is in control of D in between. P was using the bathroom and injured. Ruled in favor of P.
I: Whether the landlord has an duty of care toward the maintenance of the privy located on property under his care, or whether the P assumed the risk in using it?
R: person does not voluntarily accept a risk when no reasonable alternatives exist
A: P was under no obligation to use the facilities elsewhere, she had no choice. Those facilities were placed for her disposal by the landlord.
This is not assumption of risk, she was not required to leave the premises and go elsewhere.
C: affirmed (in favor of P)
F: P was tenants of the D. P lived in and the adjoining house, including the common bathroom that is in control of D in between. P was using the bathroom and injured. Ruled in favor of P.
I: Whether the landlord has an duty of care toward the maintenance of the privy located on property under his care, or whether the P assumed the risk in using it?
R: person does not voluntarily accept a risk when no reasonable alternatives exist
A: P was under no obligation to use the facilities elsewhere, she had no choice. Those facilities were placed for her disposal by the landlord.
This is not assumption of risk, she was not required to leave the premises and go elsewhere.
C: affirmed (in favor of P)
No comments:
Post a Comment