Negligence: Jury was properly instructed on ‘assumption of risk’ defense

Where the injured party argued the trial court improperly instructed the jury on an assumption of risk defense, but there was more than a “scintilla of evidence” supporting the instruction, this argument failed.

Background     

Amalia Mamaed appeals a personal injury judgment for Ev-Air-Tight, Shoemaker Inc.

Analysis

Mamaed contends that the court erred by instructing the jury regarding Shoemaker’s assumption of risk defense. She argues that not even a scintilla of evidence supported the instruction, emphasizing her testimony that she did not see the lumber at the platform. Mamaed also claims that, because there were no eyewitnesses, “she was the only source of information about her perceptions and actions leading up to the trip and fall.” According to Mamaed, the evidence demonstrated that she “was completely unaware of [the lumber] before she fell.”

When viewed in the light most favorable to Shoemaker, as the governing standard of review requires, the record contains more than a scintilla of evidence that Mamaed was aware that lumber throughout the garage at night presented a hazard to her safety. Mamaed recognized the dangerous condition of the garage and conceded that she “needed to take steps to protect” her safety while walking in the garage, including by paying attention to where she walked.

Despite recognizing that danger, she did not look where she walked and took a second step despite an unstable first step. She also admitted that “[t]here was nothing obstructing [her] view” of the lumber after she fell—a statement affecting the credibility of her account from before the fall and permitting a reasonable inference that she was aware of the danger. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury regarding Shoemaker’s assumption of risk defense.

Affirmed.

Mamaed v. Ev-Air-Tight, Shoemaker Inc., Record No. 0592-24-4. Sept. 16, 2025. CAV (unpublished opinion) (per curiam). From the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Frieden). (D. Cory Bilton; Bilton Law Firm, PLLC, on brief), for appellant. (Richard W. Evans; Ronald W. Cox, Jr.; Amy Leete Leone; McCarthy Wilson LLP, on brief), for appellee. VLW 025-7-254. 4 pp.