Muckler v. Buchl
150 N.W.2d 689 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The defense of assumption of risk does not apply when the defendant's negligence leaves the plaintiff with no reasonable or safer alternative course of conduct. To invoke the defense, a defendant must prove the availability of a reasonably safe alternative route that the plaintiff chose to disregard.
Facts:
- The decedent, Mrs. Muckler, was a 55-year-old woman who had been a tenant in an apartment building owned by Buchl for seven years.
- On August 11, 1962, at approximately 8:30 p.m., Mrs. Muckler was accompanying a guest down a common stairway from her second-floor apartment.
- The stairway was not artificially lit, and the building owner's agent had exclusive control over the light switch.
- Light measurements taken under similar conditions showed the illumination was significantly below the two foot-candles required by a Minneapolis city ordinance.
- A guest walking just ahead of Mrs. Muckler testified that it was so dark she could not see the steps and had to feel her way down.
- While descending the dark stairs, Mrs. Muckler fell, sustained a broken hip, and died from her injuries less than four months later.
- Aside from the inadequate lighting, the stairway had no other defects, and a handrail was in place.
- Mrs. Muckler was in good health, and there was no evidence of intoxication or any prior falls on the stairs.
Procedural Posture:
- The decedent's husband, Muckler, commenced a wrongful death action against the apartment owner, Buchl, in the district court (trial court).
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Muckler.
- The trial court denied defendant Buchl's post-trial motions.
- A judgment for $17,000 was entered in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant, Buchl, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Minnesota 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:
Did the trial court err by failing to submit the defense of assumption of risk to the jury when a tenant, who was aware a common stairway was dangerously dark, used it because no safer alternative route of egress was available?
Opinions:
Majority - Sheran, Justice.
No. The trial court did not err in refusing to submit the issue of assumption of risk to the jury. The doctrine of assumption of risk requires a voluntary choice to encounter a known and appreciated hazard, but the risk is not assumed where the defendant's conduct has left the plaintiff no reasonable alternative. Here, the dark stairway was the only means of egress from the decedent's apartment. The 'option' of remaining in the apartment indefinitely is not a reasonable alternative. Because the defendant, Buchl, failed to demonstrate the availability of a safer route that the decedent could have taken, her choice to use the stairs was not sufficiently free and voluntary to constitute assumption of risk. The court distinguished this situation from cases where a plaintiff has a clear and safe alternative but chooses a more dangerous path, affirming that the defense is very narrow in landlord-tenant cases involving necessary passageways.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the application of the assumption of risk doctrine in premises liability cases, especially within the landlord-tenant relationship. By establishing that the defense requires the defendant to prove the existence of a 'reasonable alternative' or 'safer route,' the court shifts the focus from the plaintiff's mere knowledge of a risk to the voluntariness of their choice. This precedent makes it much more difficult for landlords to avoid liability for negligence in maintaining essential common areas, like stairways, by claiming a tenant 'assumed the risk' of a hazard that the landlord created and the tenant could not practicably avoid. The ruling effectively prevents the defense from absolving a landlord who has left a tenant with no safe choice.
Unlock the full brief for Muckler v. Buchl