5542 Penn LP v. ZB of Adj. of PGH

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that requiring plaintiff be \free from contributory negligence or other responsibilities . . . would effectively erect a complete bar to recovery\ and \would be in direct contravention to the co ncept of comparative negligence\
• eliminating third element and modifying to explain effect of comparative negligence on jury’s consideration
• applying res ipsa because “[c]ommon sense and experience tell us that elevators do not usually operate in this manner and that, when they do, negligence is a more probable explanation than other causes”
• after elevator doors malfunctioned and left only a narrow opening, one passenger was able to separate the doors to exit; but when plaintiff tried to follow, the door pinned and injured her
• contributory negligence no longer a bar to res ipsa loquitur
• Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).