Police Officer Sues Homeowner After Falling Down Steps That Didn’t Have Handrails

A veteran Portland police officer who says he suffered serious injuries after falling down a homeowner’s front steps during a welfare check is suing the 76-year-old woman for $2 million, arguing that the staircase violated city code because it had no handrails.

Attorney and YouTuber Steve Lehto discussed the case on his Lehto’s Law podcast, drawing from reporting by journalist Amina Rashid and explaining why the lawsuit, while likely surprising to many homeowners, is not necessarily as unusual under Oregon law as it might first appear.

The officer, Bradley Jett, had served with the Portland Police Bureau for 17 years when he went to Rosemary Southwood’s home for a welfare check and later fell down roughly six concrete steps after a door handle came loose while he was trying to shut and lock the front door.

Lehto Says The Missing Handrails Are Central To The Case

According to Lehto’s summary of Rashid’s reporting, Jett broke one finger, dislocated two others, and suffered injuries to his head, arm and shoulder.

The lawsuit also claims he was left with lasting loss of motion and grip strength in his hand, along with lost wages and an aggravation of an existing post-traumatic stress disorder.

Lehto said the central allegation is straightforward: Portland city code requires exterior residential staircases with more than three steps to have handrails, and Southwood’s stairs allegedly had none at the time of Jett’s fall.

He noted that handrails were later installed on both sides of the staircase.

That detail may sound damaging for the homeowner, but Lehto immediately explained that it may never be shown to a jury.

The New Handrails Probably Cannot Be Used As Proof

Lehto focused at length on a rule of evidence known as the rule against using subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence.

He cited Federal Rule of Evidence 407 as a common example and said many states have similar rules.

Under that principle, if someone fixes a dangerous condition after an accident, the other side generally cannot argue that the repair itself proves the property was negligently maintained before the accident.

Lehto explained the logic behind the rule in practical terms.

If fixing a dangerous condition could automatically be used against someone in court, property owners might be tempted to leave hazards in place until litigation ends rather than making the area safer immediately.

“The fact that those were added after the man fell is not admissible in court, most likely,” Lehto said.

He added that there are exceptions, such as when the evidence is needed to challenge a claim that repairs were impossible or that the defendant had no control over the property, but he said the simple argument of “they installed handrails afterward, therefore they knew they were negligent” would generally not be allowed.

That is an important distinction because the visual of new handrails can feel like an admission to a layperson, while evidence rules are specifically designed to prevent juries from treating later safety improvements that way.

Oregon Law Gives First Responders A Clearer Path To Sue

Lehto also addressed the larger question many people are likely to have: why can a police officer sue a homeowner for an injury suffered while performing his job?

In many states, he explained, a legal doctrine known as the firefighter’s rule can limit or prevent first responders from suing property owners over hazards they encounter while responding to emergencies.

Oregon is different.

Lehto said the Oregon Supreme Court abolished that common-law rule in 1984, meaning police officers and firefighters are not automatically barred from pursuing civil claims against property owners for on-duty injuries.

Jett’s presence at Southwood’s home was also legally justified, according to the reporting Lehto cited, because officers conducting welfare checks may enter private property under the emergency-aid exception when they reasonably believe someone inside needs immediate assistance.

That means the case is not built around the officer entering the property without permission in the ordinary sense.

He was there because of his official duties, and Oregon law still allows him to argue that the property itself was negligently maintained.

Workers’ Compensation Does Not Necessarily End The Matter

Lehto said Jett’s attorney has argued that workers’ compensation does not fully cover the officer’s losses.

The lawsuit seeks damages for things such as lost wages, non-economic harm and lasting impairment, while Jett’s ability to return to police work remains uncertain.

Lehto noted that Jett went on leave about six months after the fall.

For many people, the immediate reaction may be that an officer injured on duty should simply rely on workers’ compensation, but Lehto explained that Oregon law can allow an employee to receive workers’ compensation while still pursuing a separate claim against a third party who allegedly caused the injury.

That makes the homeowner’s insurance policy especially important.

Lehto said he hoped Southwood had homeowners insurance because, if she did, the insurer would normally step in to defend the case and potentially pay a judgment or settlement within the policy’s terms.

Without insurance, a $2 million lawsuit against an elderly homeowner would obviously carry much more serious personal consequences.

Lehto Says The Case Feels Unfair, But The Law Allows It

Lehto acknowledged that the situation may strike many people as unfair.

A police officer comes onto someone’s property without being invited in the ordinary sense, gets hurt, and then sues the homeowner for a very large amount of money.

But he said the law recognizes that homeowners can receive lawful visitors they never personally invited, including police officers, firefighters, paramedics and mail carriers.

Those visitors can still be injured by dangerous conditions on the property.

Lehto used the case to tell a story about his own frustration with door-to-door salespeople who recently ignored “keep out” and “no trespassing” signs at his home and walked up to his porch anyway.

His concern was not just annoyance.

He said that if one of those strangers fell and was injured on his property, he could still face a lawsuit, which is one reason he wants to keep uninvited visitors away.

That personal example helped make his broader point: property liability can arise from people being present for many different reasons, and whether they were specifically invited is only one part of the legal analysis.

The Case May Settle Before A Trial

Lehto said the lawsuit could eventually settle, which he suggested is the most likely outcome, although he acknowledged that it could still go to trial.

If it does, the legal fight will likely focus on whether the missing handrails created an unreasonable hazard, whether the city code violation contributed to the fall, and whether Jett himself bears some responsibility for what happened when the door handle came loose.

The later installation of handrails, despite being one of the most visually striking details in the story, may play little or no role before a jury.

Lehto’s broader takeaway was that this is one of those cases where the public’s first instinct and the law do not necessarily line up.

It may sound strange that a police officer can sue a 76-year-old homeowner after getting hurt during a welfare check, but Oregon law gives him a path to do exactly that, and the alleged lack of code-required handrails gives his case a clear legal theory.

Whether that theory is strong enough to justify a $2 million recovery is another question, and one that may ultimately be decided through settlement negotiations rather than a courtroom verdict.