context: While Horton's actions in continuing to smoke might be characterized as evidence supporting a conclusion of assumption of the risk, that doctrine is subsumed in our comparative fault doctrine. Whether the context is an "open and obvious" hazard or assumption of a known risk we have tended to rely upon comparative fault principles.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 641 So.2d 20, 25
citation_a.parenthetical: Comparative fault applies where an unreasonably dangerous condition is open and obvious
citation_a.sentence: See Tharp v. Bunge Corporation, 641 So.2d 20, 25 (Miss.1994) (Comparative fault applies where an unreasonably dangerous condition is open and obvious); See also Newman v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 421 F.Supp. 488 (S.D.Miss.1976) aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 545 F.2d 439, reh. den., 551 F.2d 863 (5th Cir.1977) (Discussing the application of our comparative fault doctrine in the context of “last clear chance”.).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: Discussing the application of our comparative fault doctrine in the context of "last clear chance".
citation_b.sentence: See Tharp v. Bunge Corporation, 641 So.2d 20, 25 (Miss.1994) (Comparative fault applies where an unreasonably dangerous condition is open and obvious); See also Newman v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 421 F.Supp. 488 (S.D.Miss.1976) aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 545 F.2d 439, reh. den., 551 F.2d 863 (5th Cir.1977) (Discussing the application of our comparative fault doctrine in the context of “last clear chance”.).