, § 473, states: “If the defendant’s negligence has made the plaintiff’s exercise of a right or privilege impossible unless he exposes himself to a risk of bodily harm, the plaintiff is not guilty of contributory negligence in so doing unless he acts unreasonably.”

Comment b to Section 473 states: Among other considerations to be taken into account is the existence of an alternative method by which the right or privilege could be exercised and the inconvenience and risk

The choice of paths doctrine is cited by defendants in personal injury claims involving fall down indidents. Pennsylvania courts have generally been loath to apply the choice of paths doctrine. O'Brien v. Martin, 432 Pa. Super. 323, 638 A.2d 247 (1994). This doctrine was defined in Garvin v. Pittsburgh, 161 Pa. Super. 140, 53 A.2d 906 (1947). It states that where there is a choice of two alternate paths to the same destination, one of which is perfectly safe and the other subject to obvious risks, and the person voluntarily chooses the latter and is injured, that person is guilty of contributory negligence and cannot recover as a matter of law. Strother v. Binkele, 256 Pa. Super. 404, 416, 389 A.2d 1186, 1192 (1978), citing, Garvin, supra (emphasis added). In Strother, supra, the court reversed the granting of a non-suit in a sidewalk slip and fall case. The Court rejected the lower court’s conclusion that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent because he chose the more dangerous route over a comparatively safe one. In so doing, the Court stated:

Although with hindsight it might appear that a route…might have been somewhat safer, it is certainly not apparant that had he used that route, appellant would not have fallen while walking the three to four feet from the front of his car to the railing. In any case, it may not be concluded as a matter of law, that appellant rejected a ‘perfectly safe’ route in favor of one with obvious risk.

Id. at 1192.

In Caleodis v. Monessen, 105 A.2d 150 (Pa. 1954) the Supreme Court stated:

The appellate courts have frequently held that where a pedestrian is confronted with alternate routes, none of which is absolutely safe, he cannot be charged, as a matter of law, with contributory negligence because the route he finally selected had in it some elements of danger.”

105 A.2d at 152. (Emphasis supplied).

Restatement of Torts 2d, § 473, states: “If the defendant’s negligence has made the plaintiff’s exercise of a right or privilege impossible unless he exposes himself to a risk of bodily harm, the plaintiff is not guilty of contributory negligence in so doing unless he acts unreasonably.”

Comment b to Section 473 states: Among other considerations to be taken into account is the existence of an alternative method by which the right or privilege could be exercised and the inconvenience and risk i

o obvious risks, and the person voluntarily chooses the latter and is injured, that person is guilty of contributory negligence and cannot recover as a matter of law. Strother v. Binkele, 256 Pa. Super. 404, 416, 389 A.2d 1186, 1192 (1978), citing, Garvin, supra (emphasis added). In Strother, supra, the court reversed the granting of a non-suit in a sidewalk slip and fall case. The Court rejected the lower court’s conclusion that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent because he chose the more dangerous route over a comparatively safe one. In so doing, the Court stated:

Although with hindsight it might appear that a route…might have been somewhat safer, it is certainly not apparant that had he used that route, appellant would not have fallen while walking the three to four feet from the front of his car to the railing. In any case, it may not be concluded as a matter of law, that appellant rejected a ‘perfectly safe’ route in favor of one with obvious risk.

Id. at 1192.

In Caleodis v. Monessen, 105 A.2d 150 (Pa. 1954) the Supreme Court stated:

The appellate courts have frequently held that where a pedestrian is confronted with alternate routes, none of which is absolutely safe, he cannot be charged, as a matter of law, with contributory negligence because the route he finally selected had in it some elements of danger.”

105 A.2d at 152. (Emphasis supplied).

Restatement of Torts 2d, § 473, states: “If the defendant’s negligence has made the plaintiff’s exercise of a right or privilege impossible unless he exposes himself to a risk of bodily harm, the plaintiff is not guilty of contributory negligence in so doing unless he acts unreasonably.”

Comment b to Section 473 states: Among other considerations to be taken into account is the existence of an alternative method by which the right or privilege could be exercised and the inconvenience and risk

he chose the more dangerous route over a comparatively safe one. In so doing, the Court stated:

Although with hindsight it might appear that a route…might have been somewhat safer, it is certainly not apparant that had he used that route, appellant would not have fallen while walking the three to four feet from the front of his car to the railing. In any case, it may not be concluded as a matter of law, that appellant rejected a ‘perfectly safe’ route in favor of one with obvious risk.

Id. at 1192.

In Caleodis v. Monessen, 105 A.2d 150 (Pa. 1954) the Supreme Court stated:

The appellate courts have frequently held that where a pedestrian is confronted with alternate routes, none of which is absolutely safe, he cannot be charged, as a matter of law, with contributory negligence because the route he finally selected had in it some elements of danger.”

105 A.2d at 152. (Emphasis supplied).

Restatement of Torts 2d, § 473, states: “If the defendant’s negligence has made the plaintiff’s exercise of a right or privilege impossible unless he exposes himself to a risk of bodily harm, the plaintiff is not guilty of contributory negligence in so doing unless he acts unreasonably.”

Comment b to Section 473 states: Among other considerations to be taken into account is the existence of an alternative method by which the right or privilege could be exercised and the inconvenience and risk

with obvious risk.

Id. at 1192.

In Caleodis v. Monessen, 105 A.2d 150 (Pa. 1954) the Supreme Court stated:

The appellate courts have frequently held that where a pedestrian is confronted with alternate routes, none of which is absolutely safe, he cannot be charged, as a matter of law, with contributory negligence because the route he finally selected had in it some elements of danger.”

105 A.2d at 152. (Emphasis supplied).

Restatement of Torts 2d, § 473, states: “If the defendant’s negligence has made the plaintiff’s exercise of a right or privilege impossible unless he exposes himself to a risk of bodily harm, the plaintiff is not guilty of contributory negligence in so doing unless he acts unreasonably.”

Comment b to Section 473 states: Among other considerations to be taken into account is the existence of an alternative method by which the right or privilege could be exercised and the inconvenience and risk

HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
<a href="http://www.suggestyou.com/article/130996/suggestyou-Philadelphia-Child-Injury-Lawyer-Talks-about-Child-Injuries-and-Choice-of-Paths.html">Philadelphia Child Injury Lawyer Talks about Child Injuries and Choice of Paths</a>

BB link (for phorums):
[url=http://www.suggestyou.com/article/130996/suggestyou-Philadelphia-Child-Injury-Lawyer-Talks-about-Child-Injuries-and-Choice-of-Paths.html]Philadelphia Child Injury Lawyer Talks about Child Injuries and Choice of Paths[/url]

Related Articles:

Are You Running Too Many Poor Or Non-Productive Meetings?

One of the common complaints of many employees (including managers) is how many meetings are held that are a waste of time, energy and company resources. Most meetings generally take too long, cover too little, end without specific plans, objectives or outcomes and waste time, money and resources. I believe that “meeting” is an important business function. Meetings get people together to share information, ideas, problems, activities, solutions and feelings.

Web Design-A Website for All

Are there customers you are excluding from your website simply based on your web design? Discover a few solutions to encouraging site visitors simply by keeping it simple.

Save Money on Your Energy Bills

It is unlikely that you can have missed the news stories, which are cropping up with frightening regularity, about the huge increases in gas and electricity bills. With similar price hikes predicted in the near future it is certain that if the previous price rises aren’t already hitting you hard then your utility bills could certainly be a source of great stress in the foreseeable future. It is never too early to look at ways of saving energy and bringing the cost of those bills down.

Bookmark it: