concurring.
I agree with the Majority’s conclusion that Purcell v. English (1882), 86 Ind. 34, wherein the Court held that a landlord has no duty to clear common entryways of snow and ice, has been overruled by implication. That conclusion, as the trial court also found, is clearly dictated by post-Purcell developments in the common law. The demise of the Purcell rule is also warranted for public policy reasons, however; those considerations, as hereinafter discussed, lie inherent in the significant changes in our society’s housing patterns which have transpired in the ninety-eight years since Purcell was decided.
I also agree that it cannot be said as a matter of law that tenant Jones incurred the risk of falling or that he was guilty of contributory negligence in descending the steps. I take issue, however, with the rationale upon which the Majority reaches that conclusion, for it has pinned its determination to an incomplete statement of the law and a querulous analysis of the facts. Consequently, it is also necessary that the import of the Court’s decision here today be clarified.1
I.
Purcell and Public Policy
In the ninety-eight years which have elapsed since Purcell v. English was decided, Indiana’s population has experienced significant changes in its demographic and housing patterns. In the face of the urban growth which has continued through the bulk of the 20th century, rooming house and single family dwellings no longer were sufficient to accommodate our citizens’ housing wants. Out of the need for high-density, multi-family dwellings, apartment complexes became a commonplace mode of residential housing in the cities and towns of this state.
Today, roughly one-fourth of 'Indiana’s population resides in rental housing.2 Among those citizens residing in apartments are people of all ages and stations in life, from the unmarried to families to senior citizens. Prior to our decision here today, a landlord owed no duty to these tenants to clean common entryways of snow and ice, although a landlord did have a duty to maintain the common area in a safe condition. Coleman v. DeMoss (1969), 144 Ind.App. 408, 246 N.E.2d 483; LaPlante v. LaZear (1903), 31 Ind.App. 433, 68 N.E. 312. Happily, today marks the demise of the *16Purcell rule, for it no longer remained a workable proposition of law.
While the practical difficulties inherent to the proposition that tenants share a communal responsibility to clear the common entryways of snow and ice can well be imagined, it is also true that many tenants are simply unequipped to perform the task of snow and ice removal. They sometimes lack the physical wherewithal that is necessary; they oftentimes lack the equipment (and storage space) necessary to the task. See generally, Langley Park Apartments, Sec., H., Inc. v. Lund (1964), 234 Md. 402, 199 A.2d 620, 623.
These concerns were ably addressed in the landmark case of Fuller v. Housing Authority of Providence (1971), 108 R.I. 770, 279 A.2d 438, 49 A.L.R.3d 382. Therein, the Court adopted the so-called “Connecticut” rule by which the duty to clear snow and ice from common entryways rests with the landlord:
“We believe that today a landlord, armed with an ample supply of salt, sand, scrapers, shovels and even perhaps a snow blower, can acquit himself quite admirably as he takes to the common passageways to do battle with the fallen snow, the sun-melted snow now turned to ice, or the frozen rain. We fail to see the rationale for a rule which grants a seasonal exemption from liability to a landlord because he has failed to take adequate precautions against the hazards that can arise from the presence of unshoveled snow or unsanded or salt-free ice found in the areas of his responsibility but yet hold him liable on a year-round basis for other types of defects attributable to the workings of mother nature in the very same portions of his property. If a landlord may be liable for a tenant’s injury caused by a defect on a common premises such as a rusted handrail or a rotted step, why should he be released from liability where the injury is caused by a natural accumulation of snow and ice which is negligently permitted to remain upon the surface of the common passageway. To draw such a distinction, said the court in Langhorne Road Apartments, Inc. v. Bisson, [207 Va. 474, 150 N.E.2d 540] supra, was ‘. .to create in the law another of those strange anomalies which, once created, live on to haunt successive legal generations.’
“The soundness of the Connecticut Rule becomes evident when one considers today’s tendency for apartment-house living. In any one building are apt to be found tenants of all ages. Some may seldom wander far from the apartment complex. They should be furnished with reasonably safe common ways as they come and go to and from their apartments. One could see the difficulty of a tenant, faced with the Massachusetts Rule,3 sought to seek agreement among his fellow tenants for the sharing of the responsibility of removing snow and ice which have collected on the common premises. The landlord with a minimum of expense can and should attend to these details.” [Footnote supplied.].
279 A.2d 440, 49 A.L.R.3d at 385-386.
In the wake of Hammond v. Allegretti (1974), 262 Ind. 82, 311 N.E.2d 821 (landowner or occupier of business premises has a duty to exercise reasonable care for protection of invitees), Poe v. Tate (1974), 161 Ind.App. 212, 315 N.E.2d 392 (Hammond duty extends to natural accumulations of ice and snow), Coleman v. Demoss (1969), 144 Ind.App, 408, 246 N.E,2d 488 (landlord has duty to maintain areas within his control in a safe condition), Tippecanoe Loan & Trust Co. v. Jester (1918), 180 Ind. 357, 101 N.E. 915 (landlord has duty to maintain common elevator in safe condition for tenant’s use), and LaPlante v. LaZear (1908), 31 Ind.App. 433, 68 N.E. 812 (landlord has a duty to maintain common stairway in safe condition for tenants’ use), it would have indeed created a “legal anomaly” to perpetuate the Purcell rule. The rejection of the Purcell rule, however, was also compelled by the above-discussed policy considerations and practical inefficacy of the rule. For these reasons, we stand today with the ma*17jority of jurisdictions which hold that a landlord has a duty to clear common entryways of natural accumulations of snow and ice. See 49 A.L.R.3d 387 (1973).4
II.
Incurred Risk-Contributory Negligence
Implicit in the Majority’s opinion is the suggestion that incurred risk and contributory negligence are one and the same defense. It is true that we are confronted here with factual circumstances wherein, as is oftentimes the case, the doctrines overlap in application and are “virtually indistinguishable.” Kroger Co. v. Haun (1978), Ind. App., 379 N.E.2d 1004, 1007-13; 5 Petroski v. Northern Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. (1976), Ind.App., 354 N.E.2d 736, 744-45. Technically, however, the defenses are distinct, each with its own definition.
The Majority has characterized the “rule” of incurred risk and contributory negligence against which tenant Jones’ conduct must be measured as follows:
“ ‘[T]he voluntary conduct of one exposing himself to dangers which are so obvious, imminent and glaring that no reasonable man exercising due care for his safety would have hazarded them is negligence as a matter of law.’ ”
The quotation relied upon by the Majority — which has been drawn from Stallings v. Dick (1965), 139 Ind.App. 118, 125, 210 N.E.2d 82, 86 — does not reflect the true nature of the defenses-at-issue. Both incurred risk and contributory negligence have been specifically defined by our Courts.
The doctrine of incurred risk was explicitly explained in Stallings v. Dick :
“The doctrine of incurred risk is based upon the proposition that one incurs all the ordinary and usual risks of an act upon which he voluntarily enters, so long as those risks are known and understood by him, or could be readily discernible by a reasonable and prudent man under like or similar circumstances. Brazil Block Coal Company v. Hoodlet, [129 Ind. 327, 27 N.E. 741] supra; Bidgway v. Yenny (1944), 223 Ind. 16, 57 N.E.2d 581; Pierce v. Clemens, [113 Ind.App. 65, 46 N.E.2d 836] supra.”
139 Ind.App. at 129, 210 N.E.2d at 88. Contributory negligence, on the other hand, was defined by our Supreme Court in Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc. v. Scott (1973), 261 Ind. 27, 36, 300 N.E.2d 50, 56.
“The general rule on the issue of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence is that the plaintiff must exercise that degree of care that an ordinary reasonable man would exercise in like or similar circumstances. Bain, Admx. v. Mattmiller (1938), 213 Ind. 549, 13 N.E.2d 712. Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the plaintiff, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection. Restatement 2d of Torts § 463.” (Emphasis original.).
These tempered and more complete statements of the law best describe the standards against which tenant Jones’ conduct is measured.
The Majority’s reliance on the broad statement of law extracted from Stallings v. Dick is perhaps responsible for its conclusion that “Clearly, the fact finder could have found that Jones was guilty of contributory negligence.” Albeit dicta, it is imperative that the mis-leading nature of the Majority’s statement be examined.
Tenant Jones was attempting to leave his apartment to go to the neighborhood grocery store. He was required to pass through an entryway common to him and his fellow tenants, for that was his sole means of ingress and egress to his apart*18ment.6 In the entryway, he encountered the slippery surface (ice one and one-half inches thick). He understood the danger; the snow and ice had been accumulating during the previous week. He grasped the guardrail at the edge of the porch and moved cautiously across the entryway. When he reached the stairway, he tried to steady himself by clinging to the porch pillar located at the top of the stairway.7 Nevertheless, his feet slipped from under him. Jones sustained various injuries and was knocked unconscious in the resulting fall.
These facts constitute the evidence contained in the record which is most favorable to the judgment, consistent with the applicable standard of review which governs this Court’s review. Kroger Co. v. Haun, supra, at 1007; In re Estate of Tynes (1974), 161 Ind.App. 408, 315 N.E.2d 745, 747. Clearly, this evidence supports the negative judgment entered against landlord Rossow with respect to his tendered defense.
In that respect, I point out that incurred risk and contributory negligence are affirmative defenses. In placing the defenses in issue, landlord Rossow bore the burden of proving that tenant Jones’ conduct fell below the standards which comprise incurred risk and contributory negligence. Ind. Rules of Procedure, Small Claims Rule 4(A); Kroger v. Haun, supra; State v. Collier (1975), Ind.App., 331 N.E.2d 784, 790; Dreibelbis v. Bennett (1974), 162 Ind. App. 414, 319 N.E.2d 634, 638.
I emphasize that landlord Rossow bore the burden of proof because the Majority, in concluding that the “fact-finder could have found that Jones was guilty of contributory negligence”, has relied in part on the fact that no evidence was presented regarding: 1) whether Jones had previously slipped on the steps, 2) whether Jones had seen others slip, and 3) the “slipperiness” of the steps. If the fact finder had found Jones guilty of contributory negligence, this absence of evidence would have provided no support for that finding, since Rossow held the burden of proof on that issue. For that same reason, the absence of evidence in no way supports the Majority’s statement that Jones might have been barred from recovery on the basis that he was contributorily negligent.
The remainder of the evidence upon which the Majority apparently bases its conclusion that “clearly” Jones might have been found guilty of contributory negligence is: 1) Jones “well knew” that ice and snow were present; 2) “it was still light enough to see”; and 3) “Jones wore leather boots with rubber soles.” In the factual context before us, it would be very difficult to affirm a finding of contributory negligence — assuming, as the majority has, that such a finding could have been rendered.
Although not emphasized by the Majority, I reiterate that the common entryway was Jones’ sole means of ingress and egress for his living quarters. Of course, he “well knew” that ice and snow were present on the entryway. He passed over the entryway on a daily basis. Before his fall, the snow and ice had been accumulating throughout the week. Even though he was aware that the entryway was covered with ice and snow, he had no “choice of ways”;8 *19if he was to reach the grocery store, he was required to hazard the icy surface. That usage can neither be characterized as “voluntary” nor “unreasonable,” the critical components of the doctrines of incurred risk and contributory negligence. Our Courts have so held. State v. Dwenger (1976), Ind.App., 341 N.E.2d 776, 779-80; Easley v. Williams (1975), 163 Ind.App. 38, 321 N.E.2d 752, 754.
*18“We would also point out that a tenant, who has at his disposal more than one route of ingress and egress to his premises, may not benefit from the Connecticut Rule if it be shown that he was aware that his landlord had furnished him with one reasonably safe approach to his dwelling place but instead chose to travel on another yet unshoveled or unsalted passageway.”
*19Similarly, the manner in which Jones used the steps cannot be characterized as unreasonable or imprudent. The evidence is uncontradicted that Jones, because he was aware of the slippery surface underfoot, exercised extreme caution in his attempt to cross the entryway. The fact that “it was still light enough to see”, while no doubt serving to remind him of the challenge before him, made the surface no less treacherous.
The basis for the Majority’s observation that “clearly” Jones could have been found guilty of contributory negligence is consequently reduced to the fact that Jones wore “leather boots with rubber soles.” Whatever the skid-resistant propensities of Jones’ boots vis-a-vis other footwear, it cannot plausibly be said that — in the face of other evidence presented — Jones could properly have been barred from recovery on the basis of his footwear.
In summary, contrary to the Majority’s statement, the fact finder would have clearly erred had it somehow found that Jones’ cautious and careful usage of his sole means of ingress and egress barred his recovery for the injuries sustained in the fall. Without question, however, I agree with the Majority’s ultimate resolution of the affirmative defense issues. It cannot be said as a matter of law that Jones incurred the risk of falling or was guilty of contributory negligence in attempting to cross the entryway.
I concur.
. I note that I also concur with the Majority’s conclusion that landlord Rossow breached his duty to clear the ice and snow from the entryway. That issue, which was consolidated by the Majority with Rossow’s claim that the fact finder ignored evidence submitted by him relative to the breach-of-duty issue, rested on the question whether the snow was newly-fallen or had accumulated over a period of time. While the evidence regarding when the snow and ice had accumulated was conflicting, we cannot reweigh the evidence. Finally, I note that I also agree with the Majority’s resolution of the damages issue.
. The figure “one-fourth” is based on data compiled in United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Vol. 1, Housing Characteristics for States, Cities, and Counties no. 16 (Indiana), Table 2, p. 16-8 (1972). According to those figures, the total population living in non-institutional housing in 1970 was 5,057,210. The number of rental units occupied at that time was 456,245, with an average of 2.9 persons residing in each unit. Consequently, as of 1970, 26.2 per cent of our citizens lived in rental units.
. The “Massachusetts Rule” represents the rule laid down in Purcell. See 49 A.L.R.3d at 387,
. Commentators also agree that the better rule is that the landlord has a duty to clear common entryways. See, e. g., Prosser, Law of Torts, § 63, p. 420 (4th Ed. 1971); Harper & James, The Law of Torts § 27:17, p. 1516- 1517 (1956).
. Kroger Co. v. Hahn represents an excellent analysis of the distinctions between the doctrines and the confusing use of terminology which surrounds them.
. Landlord Rossow himself testified that he had asked Jones not to use a stairway located at the back of the building because it was “dangerous.”
. Landlord Rossow had removed the stairway railing four months previous to Jones' fall.
. The “choice of ways” doctrine, a component of the law of incurred risk and contributory negligence, is applicable only when alternative paths are available, and the path chosen involves a readily-apparent great danger which a person of “ordinary prudence" would have avoided. State v. Dwenger (1976), Ind.App., 341 N.E.2d 776, 778 80; Easley v. Williams (1975), 163 Ind.App, 38, 321 N.E.2d 752, 754, The effect of the doctrine in circumstances such as those present was well-stated in Fuller v. Housing Authority of Providence (1971), 108 R.I. 770, 279 A.2d 438, 441, 49 A.L.R.3d 382, 386: