Court Opinion

ID: 9698281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:46:29.882658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:39.849703
License: Public Domain

KNUDSON, Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent. Under the facts in this case I am not prepared to say as a matter of law that the plaintiff’s injuries were not attributable to the failure of the defendants to furnish a ladder as a means of getting into and out of the truck box. Neither do I believe that it can be said as a matter of law that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent nor assumed the risk. Upon the whole record, I am of the opinion that the evidence adduced was sufficient to form questions of fact for the consideration of the jury.
Under the circumstances of this case, the question of whether the defendants had breached their duty to furnish reasonably safe appliances, e. g., a ladder, to get into and out of the truck box was a question of fact for the determination of the jury. .
Questions of negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk are questions of fact for the jury. In this case, reasonable minds might differ as to whether the plaintiff had used ordinary care and diligence in getting out of the truck box, and whether the doctrine of assumption of risk was applicable, are questions of fact for the jury.
I would affirm the order of the trial court denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.