This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P, who had previously bought two other cookers from D, purchased a third cooker and was using it at his home. P rolled up newspaper to light the burner on the cooker and then opened the gas valve. The cooker lit and P went into his home for approximately 30 minutes. When he returned, the flame had extinguished. He turned off the gas, waited for the gas smell to dissipate, and then attempted three times to relight the cooker using the end of rolled up newspaper and placing it on the burner and then opening the gas valve. On the third attempt, P bent over to look into the cooker when a burst of flame exploded, knocking him to the ground and burning his hands and forearms. P sued D. The jury found in favor of D. On appeal P contends that the court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict on D's affirmative defenses of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence and erred in charging the jury on these defenses. D argues that he explained to P how to properly light the cooker with a trigger lighter, but that P instead chose to light the cooker with balls of newspaper and a match. He further argues that he also explained to P how to properly ventilate the cooker if the flame went out and that P was aware through his own experience that a gas cooker must be ventilated after the flame extinguishes before it can be relit.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.