Court Opinion

ID: 9446269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:50:24.33727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:35.325032
License: Public Domain

VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring).
I concur in the result reached and with all parts of the opinion except the discussion dealing with the quoted instructions. I concede that the questioned instructions are complicated, and agree that there is much to be said in favor of submitting the contributory negligence issue upon the usual simple contributory negligence instructions.
The majority does not specifically hold the instructions erroneous, but states that the “instructions confusingly intermingled contributory negligence and assumption of risk.” Some confusion exists between contributory negligence and assumption of risk. This problem was carefully considered by the Supreme Court of Iowa in Gibson v. Shelby County Fair Ass’n, 246 Iowa 147, 65 N.W.2d 433. The court there states (65 N.W.2d at page 439):
“Various decisions are cited to the effect that acquiescence in a position *820of obvious danger is contributory negligence and expressions that plaintiff assumed the risk have been used where plaintiff was said to be guilty of contributory negligence. *****
“In the case at bar defendant pleaded plaintiff’s injuries were the result of his negligence in placing himself in a position of danger and remaining there. This pleads a type of contributory negligence. Restatement of the Law, Torts, section 466, section 893.”
It is my opinion that under applicable Iowa law the instructions are not vulnerable to attack upon the ground that they confusingly intermingle contributory negligence and assumption of risk.