Court Opinion

ID: 9685126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:23:32.389098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:02.554445
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Justice Brewster
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In an earnest motion for rehearing respondent complains because, after stating in our original opinion that we would “examine the question of respondent’s liability on basis of whether it owed Wood any duty not to injure him, as presented by the first point” of error, instead of discussing the question of no duty, “as such”, we proceeded “to discuss the case entirely from the point of view of voluntary undertaking of risk, assumed risk, or volenti non fit injuria, whichever branch of this particular principle may be considered involved in this case”, *206without ever returning to the question of no duty except to “sustain petitioner’s first point.”
We took that course because, as we pointed out, ours is one of the several American jurisdictions which hold that the doctrine of assumed risk urged in petitioner’s second point applies only in cases of master-servant relationship. Then we proceeded to determine whether, under the closely kin and not substantially different maxim of volenti non fit injuria, Wood assented to respondent’s several omissions in welding the pipe which the jury found proximately caused his death. Levlon et ux. v. Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. (Civ. App.), 117 S. W. 2d 876, error refused. We went on the theory that if he did not so consent the omissions would amount to a legal wrong, that is, a violation of duty on the part of respondent. As stated in our original opinion, the volenti maxim means that the injured party consented to the act or omission which caused his injury and which, without such consent, would be a legal wrong. White v. McVicker, 216 Iowa, 90, 246 N. W., 385. Equally applicable to it is the declaration in Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Ray (Civ. App.), 187 S. W. 1085, 1089, in respect to assumed risk: “The defense of assumption of risk implies negligence on the part of the master creating liability for the damages sustained, unless such a right of action is destroyed by that defense.” The headnote in 65 C.J.S., Negligence, sec. 174, p. 848, states: “Under a doctrine referred to as the doctrine of assumed or incurred risk, and on basis of the maxim, Volenti non fit injuria, it is the rule that one who voluntarily exposes himself or his property to a known and appreciated danger due to the negligence of another may not recover for injuries sustained thereby.”
Under the circumstances of this case we are convinced that respondent owed Wood the duty not to injure him and that Wood did not consent to the omissions which caused his injury. The effect of this holding is to sustain both points of error.
Respondent’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion delivered April 18, 1951.
Second motion for rehearing overruled May 23, 1951.