My observation is that mostly the courts will not agree with that. Once a safety function is added people depend on it working, and so it is then mandatory that it keep working. That even included a light installed for a previously unlighted stairway. When it burned out my employer was liable.

You need to Google 'unlit stairwell". A light isn't a convenience, it is mandatory. From the Google search results, you'll see that Lawyers are waiting for unlit stairwell cases. Your employer wasn't only liable when the new light burned out, he would have also been liable if anyone got hurt before the lamp was installed.

It sounds to me like your employer was spinning the story so you could waste your brainpower feel sorry for him instead of thinking about the unsafe condition he had you working in.

 

You need to Google 'unlit stairwell". A light isn't a convenience, it is mandatory. From the Google search results, you'll see that Lawyers are waiting for unlit stairwell cases. Your employer wasn't only liable when the new light burned out, he would have also been liable if anyone got hurt before the lamp was installed.

It sounds to me like your employer was spinning the story so you could waste your brainpower feel sorry for him instead of thinking about the unsafe condition he had you working in.

My belief is that I am responsible for my own safety, at least the vast majority of it. And that does include paying attention to what one is doing while using a stairway, and in general, paying attention to where I am placing my feet while walking.

 

My belief is that I am responsible for my own safety, at least the vast majority of it. And that does include paying attention to what one is doing while using a stairway, and in general, paying attention to where I am placing my feet while walking.

Fortunately, the courts just don't care what people want to believe because people's "beliefs" tend to suddenly change right after they trip down a flight of stairs in the dark.