Court Opinion

ID: 9761971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:03:36.483614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:28.523677
License: Public Domain

ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING
REYNOLDS, Justice.
Abalos contends that a conclusion different from the one reached by the majority is dictated by the recent case of Farley v. M. M. Cattle Company, 18 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 398 (July 9, 1975), which abolished the defense of assumed risk. The brief answer is that this case was tried before the Farley announcement that “. . . henceforth in the trial of all actions based on negligence, volenti non fit injuria — he who consents cannot receive an injury — or, as generally known, voluntary assumption of risk, will no longer be treated as an issue . .” But the more definitive response is that the abolition of the defense does not change Abalos’s initial burden, which we have held he failed to discharge, to show the existence and violation of a duty owed him by defendant before he can establish defendant’s tort liability under the doctrine of discovered peril.
The motion and amended motion for rehearing are overruled.