¶2I do not agree with the majority's conclusion that "The fact that Aplin did not contemplate the specific means of ignition does not save him from a finding that he was contributorily negligent as a matter of law." 839 So.2d at 639. Instead, I believe that that fact precludes the finding, required to establish contributory negligence as a matter of law, that Aplin had a conscious appreciation of the danger at the moment the incident occurred. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
839 So. 2d 635
Aplin v. Tew
Decided June 21, 2002
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 2002-06-21
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 2011
3 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2002-06-21
View the full empirical analysis of this case →