Court Opinion

ID: 9790642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:56:40.921062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:30.702439
License: Public Domain

CARMODY, District Judge (dissenting in part and concurring in part). I dissent in the opinion of the majority as announced by Justice COMPTON insofar as it disposes of causes numbered 6311 and 6312. I concur in the opinion insofar as the determination that the defense of assumption of risk was not available to the defendant Garrett and, for this reason, I join in the reversal of the case insofar as this defendant is concerned. However,, it would appear to me that the reversal in part and affirmance in part of the case could very possibly work a serious injustice-as to the defendant Garrett, perhaps making him responsible for the damage which was undoubtedly concurred in by the negligence of the defendant Voight. I believe that, considering the instructions as a whole and not knowing upon what, theory the jury returned its verdicts in favor of the defendants, inasmuch as there is error as to one, the case should be reversed as to both and retried with both defendants present, but eliminating the error on retrial of assumption o-f risk insofar as the defendant Garrett is concerned. For the reasons above given therefor,. I am unable to concur in the entire opinion-