P, wife, was injured while attempting to descend an unlighted stairway controlled by D and maintained for the common use of her tenants. P was an invitee of a tenant. The linoleum stair covering was badly torn, loose, and full of holes, a condition known to D. P lighted a match before stepping from a stair covered with the defective linoleum and stumbled or tripped and fell to the foot of the stairway. There was no other means of egress available to P who sought to leave the premises to return to her home. She did not wait for the tenant to bring a light. She proceeded over an unlit stairway. Both Ps showed resulting damage. P was unable to state specifically what caused her to stumble; did she slip on loose linoleum, or did she catch her foot on torn linoleum or in a hole in the stair covering? D contended that if the plaintiff, who knew and could see what she was doing, could not tell the jury what caused her to fall, how could a jury answer this question without speculation, conjecture, or guessing? The court issued a directed verdict for D, and Ps appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.