### 1997 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d

S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s

for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-27-1997



# K a pl a n v . E x xon C or p

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ock e t

96-1495,96-1519



### F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1997

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a

U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1997 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a

U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. 

### R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" K a p l a n v . E x xon C or p " (1997). 1997 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 254.

h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1997/254Filed October 27, 1997

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Nos. 96

- 1495 and 96

- 1519

AARON KAPLAN; JUDITH KAPLAN

v.

EXXON CORPORATION

v.

JAMES J. ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.;

JAMES D. MORRISSEY, INC.,

Thir d Party Defendants

Judith Kaplan and Aaron Kaplan,

Appellants at No. 96

- 1495

Exxon Corporation,

Appellant at No. 96

- 1519

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 95

- cv

- 01942)

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 2, 1997

Before: BECKER and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

and SCHWARZER, District Judge*

_________________________________________________________________ *The Hon orable William W Schwarzer, United States District Judge for

the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the slip opinion in the

above case, filed September 25, 1997, be ame nded as

follows:

1. Page 10: Delete lines 6

- 11 and substitute the

following in lieu thereof:

"snow mound. We believe that reasonable minds could

disagree whether Kaplan acted "under circumstancesthat manifest[ed] a willingne ss to accept" the risk,

Berman, 542 A.2d at 5333, which means the issue

should go to the jury. Among the circumstances to

consider in evaluating the voluntariness of the

plaintiff's action is whether the plaintiff had a real

"choice." See Howell, 620 A.2d at 1112 ("The operative

fact is [the plaintiff's] voluntary choice to undertake

the risk."). The plaintiff does not make a real choice

when there is no safe alternative to encountering the

risk. Prosser and Keeton on Torts S 68 at 490

- 91 (W.

Page Keeton ed., 5th ed. 1984) (no assumption of risk

where plaintiff has "no reasonable alternative.").5 The

district court"

5Of course, we can ima gine situations where the

danger is known to the plaintiff and so obvious that a

court could say as a matter of law that the defendant

is not liable. See, e.g., Chiricos v. Forest Lakes Council

Boy Scouts, 391 Pa. Super. 491 , 571 A.2d 474 (1990)

(plaintiff voluntarily stood in front of a moving,

trespassing vehicle to try to stop it); Kabo v. UAL, Inc.,

762 F. Supp. 1190 (E.D.Pa. 1991) (sixty five year old

plaintiff/President of travel agency s uffered heart

attack while lifting heavy baggage for tour group at

airport).

2. Renumber all subsequent footnotes.

BY THE COURT,

/s/ Anthony J. Scirica

Circuit Judge

2

DATED: October 27, 1997

A True Copy:

Teste:

Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3