One can well appreciate a conclusion of "violation of expectancy" when, as in Watt v. The Queen, supra, a spectator, whose attention is deliberately distracted, encounters a change in floor level which is perhaps not noticeable at a casual glance because of identical carpeting on the different floor levels. But it is quite a different matter to entirely fail to perceive a barrier -- not at floor level but at higher than waist level -- designed for that very purpose, and also to totally fail to observe the stairwell behind the barrier, well lighted and perceptible with but a hasty glance. Can it be said that the plaintiff used reasonable care for her own safety?
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.