Grant v. Smart

The defendant in error contends that the plaintiff is precluded from recovery because he used the porch with knowledge of its dangerous and unsafe condition as evidenced by his allegation that “commencing in the early part of 1948 the plaintiff and his wife noticed that the wood of and about the said front porch was beginning to rot and deteriorate . This allegation is explained by the additional allegation that the post which swung out from the porch causing the plaintiff’s fall upon casual inspection appeared to be safe and secure. These are not inconsistent allegations which must be…