A pedestrian was walking on a public sidewalk when a poorly maintained awning from a commercial building suddenly collapsed, striking and injuring her. The building owner was aware of the awning's deteriorated condition but had postponed repairs due to cost. The pedestrian sued the building owner for negligence. At trial, the building owner argued that the pedestrian should have seen the visibly damaged awning and avoided walking under it. Which of the following defenses is the building owner most likely to raise?

Why the other options are wrong

• A. Intervening cause refers to an event occurring after the defendant's negligence that contributes to the injury, breaking the chain of causation. This scenario doesn't present such an event.
• C. Assumption of risk requires the plaintiff to have actual knowledge of the risk and voluntarily proceed in the face of it. While there might be some overlap, the primary argument presented by the owner leans more towards the pedestrian's lack of ordinary care.
• D. Sudden emergency applies when a defendant is confronted with an unforeseen emergency and acts reasonably given the circumstances. This defense is not applicable to the pedestrian's actions or the owner's liability.