Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/280/280mass503.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 15:07:08+00:00

Document:
EDWARD SYLVAIN vs. BOSTON AND MAINE RAILROAD.
The doctrine in the law of master and servant called contractual assumption of risk, that a servant assumes the risk of the conditions of the employment which are existing and manifest when the employment begins, is more accurately expressed by saying that the master owes the servant no duty to change the obvious conditions and methods of business in use when the employment begins even though they are less safe than others, and so cannot be charged with negligence in continuing them. Per LUMMUS, J.
Although a defence of voluntary assumption of risk, when open, must be pleaded and proved by the defendant, the so called contractual assumption of risk need not be pleaded specifically, for it relates to the issue of the defendant's negligence, as to which the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
(3) There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant or any of its servants, and the ordering of a verdict for the defendant was right.
TORT. Writ in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston dated March 3, 1931.
On removal to the Superior Court, the action was tried before Brown, J. Material evidence is stated in the opinion. The judge ordered a verdict for the defendant and reported the action for determination by this court.
L. M. Harlow, for the plaintiff.
F. P. Garland, (J. De Courcy with him,) for the defendant.
gutter and his right knee on the roof about two feet from the edge, tried to straighten the paper, lost his balance, and fell to the ground. On cross-examination he testified that he knew the paper was stuck down too hard to be straightened, and admitted that he was hurt "trying to do an impossible thing in a dangerous way."
defendant's negligence. Moulton v. Gage, 138 Mass. 390. Goodes v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 162 Mass. 287. Boisvert v. Ward, 199 Mass. 594. Moses v. Sprague-Nugent Co. 219 Mass. 144.
What is relied on as evidence of negligence is the order from Crowley to the plaintiff to get down on his knees and push the roll up. The manner of executing that order was left to the plaintiff, an experienced man who knew the dangers as well as Crowley. The order did not require the plaintiff to use any negligent or dangerous method. Lothrop v. Fitchburg Railroad, 150 Mass. 423. Lodi v. Maloney, 184 Mass. 240. Cusick v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad, 213 Mass. 306. Morris v. Pike, 216 Mass. 528. McCann v. Central Construction Co. 218 Mass. 595. Compare Bernabeo v. Kaulback, 226 Mass. 128; Leary v. New York Central Railroad, 235 Mass. 432. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant or any of its servants, and the direction of a verdict for the defendant was right.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.