P visited the home of D, when D was ill to care for him and help with household chores. P fell on a carpet cleaner hose while carrying clothes to a bedroom. P was injured and required medical care, including the placement of a plate in her leg. P sued D alleging negligence. D claimed that P was negligent in connection with the occurrence and that she failed to mitigate her damages. P offered evidence that Marc was aware that the carpet cleaner hose was broken but did not warn her of the defect. The color of the hose blended in with the color of the carpet, thereby making it difficult to see, and that one of two lights in the hallway near where she fell was not working, which lessened the light available to detect the hazard. D claimed that the broken hose was an open and obvious hazard and that P did not turn on the light which was functioning in the hallway area. P sought a general negligence instruction rather than the instruction on the duty of care owed to a licensee. The court used the jury instruction for licensees. D got the verdict. P appealed.

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

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.