Helm v. 206 Massachusetts Avenue, LLC
2014 WL 7272771, 2014 Del. LEXIS 604, 107 A.3d 1074 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Delaware's comparative negligence statute, a plaintiff who voluntarily encounters a known risk created by a defendant's negligence is considered to have secondarily assumed the risk. This does not act as a complete bar to recovery but is instead a question of fact for the jury to apportion fault between the parties.
Facts:
- Gail Helm and her husband Scott Helm rented a beach house for one week in July 2010 from Gallo Realty, Inc., which was owned by 206 Massachusetts Avenue, LLC.
- Upon arriving, Gail Helm learned the house was unclean and smelled of urine, which she traced to dirty rugs in an upstairs bathroom.
- Around 8:00 p.m., while it was still light outside, she took the rugs downstairs to the first-floor laundry.
- Between 11:00 p.m. and midnight, Gail Helm went to move the rugs from the washer to the dryer.
- She found the stairway to the first floor was very dark, with no light switch at the top to illuminate the bottom.
- In her deposition, Helm acknowledged that she recognized the dark stairwell was a 'safety issue' and 'knew it was unsafe' before descending, but thought she could 'handle it.'
- While descending, she used the banister to guide herself but misjudged the location of the final step, causing her foot to roll over the edge and for her to fall.
- As a result of the fall, Helm suffered three broken bones in her left foot.
Procedural Posture:
- Gail and Scott Helm sued Gallo Realty, Inc. and 206 Massachusetts Avenue, LLC in the Delaware Superior Court (trial court), alleging negligence and breach of contract.
- Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for both defendants, ruling that as a matter of law, Gail Helm was more than fifty percent negligent and had primarily assumed the risk of her fall.
- The Helms filed a Motion for Reargument, which the Superior Court denied.
- The Helms, as appellants, appealed the Superior Court's grants of summary judgment to the Delaware Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's voluntary decision to descend a dark staircase she acknowledged as unsafe constitute primary assumption of risk that bars her negligence claim as a matter of law, rather than secondary assumption of risk to be evaluated by a jury under comparative negligence principles?
Opinions:
Majority - Holland, Justice
No. A plaintiff's decision to encounter an ordinary hazard does not bar recovery as a matter of law; rather, it constitutes secondary assumption of risk, which must be weighed by a jury as part of a comparative negligence analysis. The court distinguished between primary and secondary assumption of risk. Primary assumption of risk, which completely bars recovery, applies only when a plaintiff expressly consents to relieve a defendant of a duty, typically in the context of inherently risky activities like contact sports. Descending stairs in a rental home is not such an activity. Gail Helm’s conduct—voluntarily encountering a known risk created by the landlord's potential negligence (the dark stairs)—is a classic example of secondary assumption of risk. Under Delaware's comparative negligence statute, secondary assumption of risk is subsumed into the comparative fault analysis. Therefore, the question of what percentage of negligence to attribute to Helm is a question of fact for the jury, and summary judgment was inappropriate.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between primary and secondary assumption of risk within a comparative negligence jurisdiction. It clarifies that the complete defense of primary assumption of risk is narrowly confined to situations involving an express or inherent acceptance of risk, such as in sports, and does not apply to ordinary, everyday hazards. By holding that secondary assumption of risk is merged into the comparative fault framework, the court ensures that questions of a plaintiff's contributory negligence in knowingly encountering a risk are almost always decided by a jury rather than by a judge on summary judgment. This makes it more difficult for defendants to defeat negligence claims early in litigation based solely on the plaintiff's awareness of a danger.
Unlock the full brief for Helm v. 206 Massachusetts Avenue, LLC