Appleyard v. Port of Portland

“[A]n invitee’s failure to exercise reasonable care for his or her own safety may be the basis of a comparative-fault defense if the invitee’s negligence relates and contributes to the harm or risk of harm created by the defendant’s negligence.” Appleyard v. Port of Portland, 311 Or App 498 (2021).

Appleyard lacerated his foot on the sharp metal edge of the baggage carousel while retrieving his luggage at Portland International Airport (PDX). Appleyard sued PDX, under a premises liability theory. At trial, the jury found in favor of PDX on comparative fault grounds because Appleyard tripped over his own bags. Appleyard appealed the judgment of dismissal and argued that it was an error to instruct the jury to analyze self-inflicted tripping on his own bag under comparative fault because Appleyard was an invitee who was not aware of nor should have been aware of the dangerous condition. PDX argued that a party, regardless of invitee status, is responsible just the same to avoid injury using reasonable care. “[A]n invitee’s failure to exercise reasonable care for his or her own safety may be the basis of a comparative-fault defense if the invitee’s negligence relates and contributes to the harm or risk of harm created by the defendant’s negligence.” Appleyard v. Port of Portland, 311 Or App 498 (2021). The court held that the jury was permitted to review the fact that Appleyard tripped over his own bag, regardless of invitee status, using the comparative fault defense. Whether Appleyard knew or should have known and avoided the dangerous condition was not dispositive. Affirmed.