Court Opinion

ID: 9628786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:32:01.08402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:11.298427
License: Public Domain

Owsxjsy, J.,
dissenting: I cannot agree with the portion of the majority opinion which holds that the plaintiff is precluded from recovery for his damages because he assumed the risk of injury as a matter of law. In Railroad Co. v. Morris, 76 Kan. 836, 93 Pac. 153, this court established the rule which has been frequently quoted in master and servant cases, stating:
“Where a master orders a servant into a situation of danger, .and in obeying the command the servant is injured, he will not be charged with contributory negligence, or with an assumption of the risk, unless the danger was so glaring that no prudent man would have encountered it, even under such orders, provided he acts with reasonable prudence in executing such orders.” (Syl. 2.)
Defendant ordered plaintiff to “go in there [the pen] and keep them milling around. Never stop. Just keep them moving.” Thus plaintiff should not be charged with assumption of risk unless the danger he faced was “so glaring that no prudent man would have encountered it.” While the evidence indicated plaintiff had been around, cattle most of his life, it also revealed he had never worked cattle in a holding pen. Furthermore, he had been told by defendant and defendant’s wife that their cattle were docile and like pets. The animals, to plaintiffs observation, had never demonstrated any skittishness or hostility until the cow charged plaintiff and threw him over the fence. It wasn’t until after the accident that he learned Charoláis cattle were generally more skittish than other livestock. These factors, coupled with the fact two other men went into the pen with plaintiff to move the cattle, create an issue which should be resolved by a jury.