Koutoufaris v. Dick

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that secondary assumption of the risk as a complete bar to recovery is inconsistent with comparative negligence
• stating that “[o]rdinarily, disputed questions of control between distinct entities are best reserved for jury determination”
• affmning that Fell v. zzmazh, 575 A.2d 267 (Del. Super. 1989) correctly states Delaware law
• stating that secondary assumption of risk, or other forms of plaintiff negligence, “to a level greater than a defendant’s primary negligence, may constitute proximate cause sufficient to bar recovery”
• finding that a landowner’s “actual control of the premises is a sufficient basis for positing a claim by a business invitee even if that control were shared jointly, with another party . . . .”
• discussing the impact of the comparative negligence statute on traditional assumption of the risk analysis

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).