Opinion ID: 1399781
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the plaintiff assume the risk by remaining under the chute when he saw it coming down?

Text: It is further urged that the plaintiff assumed the risk when he did not get out from under the chute when he knew that it was tilting and falling, but attempted to hold it up. What the defendant overlooks, in making this argument, is that while the plaintiff had seen the chute on a hay elevator tip and the top go down and the bottom come up, he had no reason or basis for knowing that it would collapse completely, as it did in this instance, with the entire chute falling to the ground. [7] One does not assume a risk of which he has no knowledge, and whether the plaintiff should or should not have appreciated the danger of this particular collapse was an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ, and it was properly left to the jury. Blanco v. Sun Ranches, Inc. (1951), 38 Wn. (2d) 894, 234 P. (2d) 499. RE: INSTRUCTIONS GENERALLY: The defendant assigns error to eleven instructions given by the trial court and to the trial court's refusal to give four requested instructions. The complaint, generally, about the instructions given is not that they incorrectly state the law, but that they are not applicable, since the case should not have been submitted to the jury inasmuch as (a) there was no evidence of negligence; (b) there was contributory negligence or assumption of risk, as a matter of law, either because a positive order was disobeyed, or that the methods used by the plaintiff in moving the elevator invited the catastrophe. With our determination that the evidence made jury questions of negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk, the exceptions to the instructions given and requested are, for the most part, disposed of. Two do require consideration; and one presents what is, for us, the most difficult issue in the case, i.e.,