Court Opinion

ID: 9811516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:23:08.764227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:44.914716
License: Public Domain

Clakk, C. *J\,
concurs, on tbe further ground that tbe following paragraph in section 4 of tbe Federal Employers’ Liability Act, “Such employee shall not be held to have assumed tbe risk of bis employment in any case where tbe violation by such'common carrier of any statute enacted for tbe safety of employees contributed to tbe injury or death of such employee,” merely *439emphasizes the fact that in such cases there is no assumption of risk. It cannot be construed, fairly, to be an implied provision that assumption of risk is a defense in all other cases. '
Besides, assumption of risk ’lies in contract, and under the provision of Revisal, 2646, “Any contract or agreement, expressed or implied, made by any employee of such company to waive the benefit of this section shall be null and void,” it has been repeatedly held that the doctrine of assumption of risk has been eliminated by this section. Biles v. R. R., 143 N. C., 78; Thomas v. R. R., 129 N. C., 392; Gogdell v. R. R., 129 N. C., 398; Coley v. R. R., 128 N. C., 534. Such contract, therefore, being- null and Aoid under our statute, it cannot be a defense, Avhich depends upon the validity of such contract.