Provencher Brief Essay, Research Paper

Facts: Motorist located a roadside rest area. The user of the roadside rest area fell on the stairs. The fall caused an injury, which consisted of a fractured right ankle.

Judicial History: The user of the roadside rest area filed a complaint of negligence against ODOT. The plaintiff claimed the steps were in need of repair. ODOT argued that the user of the rest area was only a public invitee and was not there for a beneficial reason. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of ODOT.

Issues: (1) Does ODOT who was not purposely trying to cause the area user bodily harm owes the user a compensation, for her injuries? (2) If ODOT owes the user of the roadside rest area any type of compensation what should the user receive?

Holding: (1) No.

(2) There is compensation owed only to injuries caused intentionally and when people are on the property for business purposes.

Reasoning: The use of a roadside rest area is an invitation to use ODOT’ s facilities. The facilities should be safely manageable. The users of the roadside rest area’s awareness of unsafe things such as the stairs that may be in bad shape needs to kept in mind. The defendant and the plaintiff owe each other equal amounts of caution and consideration.