On the evidence adduced, the jury could have found that appellant was a business visitor to respondent's premises, and that respondent was negligent in failing to give appellant, by lighting or otherwise, warning of a condition of peculiar danger existing on such premises. The question of appellant's contributory negligence was likewise one of fact, for the jury to determine. Cases invoked by respondent, which held that one is guilty of negligence as a matter of law in entering...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
