D.C.: "Hybrid" Cases of Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk on Summary Judgment

On September 2, 2010, the D.C. Court of Appeals issued the opinion in Phillips and Phillips v. Fujitec America, Inc., et al., D.C.C.A. No.l 09- CV-480  addressing the propriety of disposing of an action on the grounds of contributory negligence through summary judgment.

In this case, Ms. Phillips was visiting friends in Gallery Place Condominiums and became stuck in an elevator between the fifth and sixth floors with her host, Mr. Snow.  Snow, having substantial military training, was able to extricate himself from the elevator without incident.  After leaving to obtain help, he returned to the elevator at which time Phillips began to attempt to exit the elevator as well.  Snow instructed her to wait because assistance was coming, and indicated there was a substantial gap between the elevator and lobby floor that posed significant risk during her exit.  Phillips refused to remain in the elevator and also refused assistance from Snow.  As a result of her efforts, Phillips slipped into the gap between the elevator and the sixth floor lobby and fell to the bottom of the elevator shaft, where she died.  Her parents brought a survivors' negligence action against the Defendants.

In the trial court, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the actions of the decedent were contributorily negligent. The trial court granted the motion, and an appeal was heard by the D.C. Court of Appeals.  The Court, after reviewing the facts, noted that both the doctrines of contributory negligence and assumption of risk could apply in this type of "hybrid" case, where one voluntarily but unreasonably accepts a known risk created by a defendant's negligence.  However, the Court held that the focus should be on the reasonableness of the actions rather than its voluntariness, thus implicating the doctrine of contributory negligence.  In applying the law, the Court noted there was an abundance of evidence demonstrating that Phillips had ignored the warnings of her host and had attempted to exit the elevator with full appreciation of the danger that the gap between the elevator and lobby floor posed, and her actions contributed to her death.

The Court also rejected the argument that the sudden emergency doctrine absolved Phillips of responsibility, because Phillips' conduct was unreasonable, as a matter of law, in ignoring the risk that leaving the elevator presented.  There were no facts to support the argument that she needed to act spontaneously, which left no room for the application of the sudden emergency doctrine.

This case provides a solid framework for understanding these defenses in hybrid situations.