Court Opinion

ID: 9849831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:47:15.067924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:26.712146
License: Public Domain

*821Harrison, J.,
dissenting.
Appellee obviously patronized the Sky Slide for the thrill, excitement and adventure involved. The thrill of the ride occurs during descent when the rider becomes temporarily airborne, or nearly so, at the humps built into the slide. Whether a rider becomes airborne, and the degree thereof, depends upon a number of factors. The velocity of the descent is necessarily determined by the angle of the slide, the weight of the rider, humidity, wind resistance, weather conditions, when the lane was last waxed, the amount of wax applied, the extent of use after the last waxing, the amount of water, if any, applied, and possibly other conditions.
We have here a 27-year*-old man who admitted that he was familiar with the manner in which sky slides are operated. He must have known the variables involved. He had just witnessed an accident. The signs that he saw, and the recordings that he heard, apprised him of the fact that the slide posed an element of danger to all users, particularly to those over the age of twenty-five years, as was Mr. Lehmann. Appellee was told that the lane he was to use had just been waxed. He therefore knew he was to be its first user after the waxing. Notwithstanding all the warnings, and his knowledge of and previous experience with sky slides, he ventured to take the ride which resulted in the accident. He had been warned of just this possible result.
The doctrine of assumption of risk rests on two premises: (1) that the nature and extent of the risk are fully appreciated; and (2) that it is voluntarily incurred. Davis v. Sykes, 202 Va. 952, 954, 121 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1961). See also Leslie v. Nitz, 212 Va. 480, 184 S.E.2d 755 (1971), and Landes v. Arehart, 212 Va. 200, 183 S.E.2d 127 (1971).
In Landes v. Arehart, supra, we quoted with approval from Hunn v. Windsor Hotel Company, 119 W. Va. 215, 218, 193 S.E. 57, 58 (1937), as follows:
“ ‘Where a person has knowledge of and fully appreciates a danger, and under such circumstances, without any special exigency compelling him, he exposes himself to such danger or peril, his act in the premises may be deemed to have been voluntary... . Freedom of the will, in fact, is the thing emphasized by the principle asserted in the maxim volenti non fit injuria” 212 Va. at 203,183 S.E.2d at 129.
*822Lehmann made his decision to take the ride “without any special exigency compelling him”, with knowledge that the lane he was to use had just been waxed and after having been fully advised of the danger involved. He fully appreciated the nature and extent of the risk and voluntarily assumed a known hazard.
I would reverse the judgment of the lower court.
Carrico, J., joins in this dissent.