Fall off stage plank

If you chooses to walk a plank and fall, it's probably your fault and you can't sue the ship's captain.

The court held that while a dangerous open and obvious condition is not necessarily effectively avoidable simply because it was successfully avoided, "if the condition is avoided multiple times, that does show that it was effectively avoidable." In this case, "the hazardous situation of the narrow walking area and unguarded back of the elevated stage was successfully navigated multiple times by multiple people, including" the injured plaintiff. Thus, the court concluded that the trial court erred in finding there was a question of fact as to whether it was effectively unavoidable and in denying the defendant's summary disposition motion. The injured plaintiff fell off a raised stage platform while walking on it during an event held on defendant's premises. She was a speaker at the event. The stage was set up with stairs at each end, a table along the front with a podium in the middle, chairs at the table, and a space along the back for traversing the stage (or getting from a seat to the podium and back). Neither party disputed that the stage was set up some distance from the wall behind it, and there was no guardrail at the back. After reviewing the photos submitted by the parties and the injured plaintiff's testimony, the court found that "it was unambiguously obvious that the stage was raised off the ground, had a narrow area in which to walk behind the chairs on the stage, and was unguarded at the back. It should go without saying that an average adult would be aware that falling off a raised platform would be dangerous and that there is an increased risk of doing so when maneuvering room is tight and railing is absent." Further, the stairs to ascend or descend the stage were at the far ends, giving anyone approaching the stage a clear view of the situation. The court concluded that under the circumstances, "a reasonable person would have been aware of the danger posed by the raised stage with its narrow walking area and unguarded rear." The more difficult question was whether the hazardous condition was effectively unavoidable. "A condition is 'effectively unavoidable' if it cannot be avoided by an invitee without that invitee avoiding the premises altogether." The court concluded that just because the injured plaintiff "technically could have refused to ascend the stage, the hazard was not therefore effectively avoidable." The court also noted that "'effectively unavoidable' does not necessarily mean 'absolutely unavoidable.'" However, the "number of times a hazard is safely bypassed will eventually show that that avoidance of harm is not a statistical fluke." Defendant cited several unpublished opinions involving situations where a hazard was faced numerous times by numerous people without any harm befalling them before an injury was suffered by the plaintiffs. The court concluded that the cases defendant cited were "consistent with the most rational way of evaluating the effective unavoidability of a hazard where that hazard has been successfully avoided" - "the more frequently a hazard is traversed without harm, the more likely it is that the hazard is effectively avoidable." While the hazard here did not appear to have been faced by a great number of people over an extended period of time, the evidence showed that "the statistical fluke" was the injured plaintiff's fall, not the other speakers' safety. Thus, the court concluded that under the circumstances, the facts showed that the hazard was not effectively unavoidable. Reversed.