Helm v. 206 Massachusetts Avenue

Supreme Court of Delaware · 2014 · Torts

TortsNegligenceAssumption of RiskComparative NegligencePremises Liabilityprimary assumption of risksecondary assumption of riskcomparative negligence

Facts

The Helms rented a beach house for one week, and on the night they arrived Gail Helm went downstairs to move bathroom rugs from the washer to the dryer. The stairwell was very dark because there was no light switch at the top of the stairs controlling the foyer light below, and Gail acknowledged she saw a safety issue and knew the stairs were unsafe before descending. She nevertheless proceeded, used the banister to guide herself, misjudged the final step, fell, and suffered serious foot injuries. The owner and rental agent argued that she primarily assumed the risk and was more than fifty percent negligent as a matter of law.

Issue

Whether Gail Helm's decision to descend a dark stairway in the rental house constituted primary assumption of risk or comparative negligence greater than fifty percent as a matter of law, so that summary judgment for the defendants was proper. Also, whether the appellate court should address the indemnification clause and contract claim on this appeal.

Rule

Primary assumption of risk applies only when the plaintiff expressly consents to relieve the defendant of a legal duty or where there is a bargained-for, agreed-upon shifting of the risk of harm; if established, it negates duty and bars recovery as a matter of law. By contrast, secondary assumption of risk occurs when a plaintiff voluntarily encounters a known risk created by another's breach of duty, and under Delaware's comparative negligence statute that conduct is subsumed within comparative negligence and ordinarily presents a fact question for the jury. Only in rare cases, where the evidence permits but one inference and requires a finding that the plaintiff's negligence exceeded the defendant's, may a court bar recovery as a matter of law.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Torres rented a cabin in Asheville, North Carolina, from Blue Fern Lodging. Late at night, she saw that the back deck stairs were unlit and said to her friend that the steps looked dangerous, but she went down anyway to retrieve groceries and fell when she missed a step.

In Nina's negligence suit against the cabin owner, the owner moves for summary judgment, arguing that Nina primarily assumed the risk because she recognized the danger before using the stairs. What is the best response?

Explanation. The majority rule is that primary assumption of risk negates duty only when the plaintiff expressly consents to relieve the defendant of a legal duty or there is a bargained-for shifting of the risk of harm. A plaintiff's voluntary decision to encounter a known danger created by the defendant's alleged breach is secondary assumption of risk, which Delaware treats as part of comparative negligence. Thus Nina's awareness of the dark stairs does not, by itself, establish primary assumption of risk or justify summary judgment.