Ps were tenets of the D which controlled the house where Ps lived and the bathroom for use of two of D's houses.
P went to use the bathroom and knew the wood along there was rickety. P fell through the negligently maintained floor into the poop.
P sued D for obvious reasons (negligence).
Trial court found for P.
NJ Supreme Court affirmed, found for P.
Should a P be barred from recovery if P assumes some risk in undertaking the action which leads to the injury attributed to D's negligence?
P should not be barred from recovery even if P assumes some risk in undertaking the action which leads to the injury attributed to D's negligence. The doctrine of contributory (in the old days, now should use comparative) negligence should be used in such cases.
P had no choice but to use the bathroom furnished by D. It would have been unreasonable for her to go to a public toilet.
It may have been contributory negligence for P to step on the floor that she knew was in bad shape. This is a question that the jury decided.
Implied assumption of risk is swallowed up by comparative negligence (contributory in this case since it's old).