Diorio v. Penny
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Dissent
*410Judge Greene
dissenting.
The majority concludes that the plaintiff was contributorially negligent as a matter of law because she “failed to undertake any action whatsoever to correct . . . [the staircase] or to notify the landlord” of its allegedly defective condition. I disagree.
I
A
For purposes of tort law and the doctrine of contributory negligence, a tenant may be required to correct defective conditions in the leased premises to avoid injury to herself. This duty, however, depends on various factors, including, but not limited to, the extent of the defect and the cost to the tenant to repair…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Collingwood v. General Electric Real Estate Equities, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
- Smith v. Fiber Controls Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- Lenz v. Ridgewood AssociatesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- Brooks v. FrancisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
- Surratt v. NewtonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.