What is the liability of a plaintiff who was distracted by a nude performance?

The question is, was the plaintiff guilty of fault which contributed to his damage? I have said the hazard could have been seen if the plaintiff had been looking where he was going. He was not doing so because he was distracted by the nude female on stage. The occupier put her there to be looked at and, in my view, cannot say the visitor should not have allowed himself to be distracted. I, therefore, decline to divide liability. In Watt v. R., 1973 CanLII 1190 (FC), [1973] F.C. 264, 36 D.L.R. (3d) 602, there was a combination of hazard and distraction and the trial judge declined to find fault in the plaintiff. I think this is a similar situation, although here perhaps the distraction was greater.