Court Opinion

ID: 9784864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:56:22.144136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:00.513769
License: Public Domain

BATTAGLIA, J.,
dissenting.
For the reasons presented by the Court of Special Appeals, I would affirm the judgment. Our colleagues on the intermediate appellate court properly determined that none of the evidence presented to the jury expressly or implicitly inserted assumption of risk into the trial. Based on the facts of this case, the evidence regarding the Right of Refusal and the decedent’s choice to mount the roof of the train car suggested reasonable alternatives, “ ‘besides quitting or refusing to perform the task in an unsafe way,’ ” Collins v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 187 Md.App. 295, 313, 315, 978 A.2d 822, 833, *257834 (2009), quoting Fashauer v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 57 F.3d 1269, 1280 (3d Cir.1995), such that only the defense of contributory negligence was in issue.