Court Opinion

ID: 9862046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:58:50.764936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:29:57.928125
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I think the Court of Appeals was correct in concluding that the facts in this case establish as a matter of law the defense of incurred risk. Put in its simplest form, the rule is that "a person may not recover for an injury received when he voluntarily exposes himself to a known and appreciated danger." Black's Law Dictionary 118 (5th ed. 1979) (assumption of risk). If this defense is to have much meaning, I would expect that should bar claims by someone who sees that there is snow and ice on the ground, knows that there is ice on the parking lot she is about to cross, pauses to assess the danger of crossing it, and elects to try. Strong as the impulse might be to vote in favor of an elderly diabetic and against the convenience store and its carrier, I think the defendant made out a legally sufficient case of incurred risk and is entitled to prevail under the law.
PIVARNIK, J., joins in this dissent.