Court Opinion

ID: 9525956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:10:01.145552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:49.183779
License: Public Domain

Wright, J.,
dissenting.
Pleiss fell from a ladder while attempting to place a bundle of shingles on the roof of Barnes’ house. The day prior to the accident, Pleiss observed Barnes place the ladder against the gutter of the residence near the rear of the house. Pleiss used the ladder to ascend to the roof at least six times without incident prior to the accident. On these occasions, Pleiss had the bundle of shingles removed from his shoulders by Barnes’ son, who was standing on the roof.
When Pleiss fell, he was attempting to place a bundle of shingles on the roof by himself. The ladder “flipped, twisted and *779started to slide,” and he fell to the ground. After the fall, the ladder was in the same position it had been prior to the accident.
Pleiss had been employed as a framer, and he had observed others using a ladder to repair roofing and clean gutters. Pleiss stated he knew that one of the risks of climbing a ladder was that it could “get shaky and fall down.”
The majority has determined that the trial court erred in giving an instruction on assumption of risk and in failing to fully instruct on the effects of allocation of negligence. The majority has concluded that the evidence did not show that Pleiss knew or understood the possibility that the ladder could flip, twist, or slide.
I respectfully dissent. The facts of this case establish the obvious danger of climbing a ladder and attempting to place a bundle of shingles on a roof without assistance. One who knows, appreciates, and deliberately exposes himself to a danger assumes the risk thereof. See Landrum v. Roddy, 143 Neb. 934, 12 N.W.2d 82 (1943). In my opinion, Pleiss assumed the risk because the risk of falling during such an undertaking would be readily apparent.
Because I do not believe the trial court erred by instructing the jury on assumption of risk, I assert that the trial court’s error in not instructing on contributory negligence was harmless. The jury was instructed that if Bames met the burden of proving that Pleiss assumed the risk, the jury was to complete the verdict form in favor of Bames. Since the jury found for Bames on the issue of assumption of risk, it was not necessary to consider whether Pleiss was contributorily negligent.
For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.