Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

True v. Fath Bluegrass Manor Apartment, 358 S.W.3d 23 (2011)

Citation
True v. Fath Bluegrass Manor Apartment, 358 S.W.3d 23 (2011)
Parent Document
True v. Fath Bluegrass Manor Apartment, 358 S.W.3d 23 (2011)
Jurisdiction
Kentucky (state)
Effective Date
2011-12-22

Other Sections in This Document (39)

Full Text

887 chars
However, this view also alters the position of the person injured by an open and obvious danger to the extent that only under extremely rare circumstances could a plaintiff avoid some share of the fault under comparative negligence. While “open and obvious danger” is no longer a complete defense under the Restatement, it is nonetheless a heightened type of danger which places a higher duty on the plaintiff to look out for his own safety. Such a condition, being open and obvious, should usually be noticed by a plaintiff who is paying reasonable attention. Yet the plaintiff is not completely without a defense to this: there could be foreseeable distraction, or the intervention of a third party pushing the plaintiff into the danger, for example. Even in such situations, a jury could still reasonably find some degree of fault by the plaintiff, depending on the facts. Id. at 392.