Court Opinion

ID: 9685125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:23:32.38489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:02.551711
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Wilson
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the law announced in the decision of the majority.
As I view the majority opinion it holds that:
1. The doctrine of assumption of risk does not apply here because that doctrine is limited to a master-servant relationship. Here the plaintiff’s husband was an employee of an independent contractor.
2. The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria does not operate to relieve defendant here as a matter of law because a necessary element of the doctrine is not established as a matter of law. The majority lists these elements as:
(a) Knowledge of the specific danger.
*202(b) Voluntarily putting himself in the way of the specific danger.
The majority opinion points out that for the volenti doctrine to be applicable plaintiff’s husband must have known and appreciated the danger, and that by appreciate is meant a full knowledge of the nature and extent of the danger. By the word “voluntary” is meant that he puts himself in the way of the danger of his own free will and as a result of an “intelligent choice”, which latter phrase, when tied to the definition of knowledge of danger, means that he must know the very specific danger to which he is exposing himself.
The majority then state that the defect in the pipe in this case was a latent defect and, this being true, plaintiff’s husband did not know of the specific defect. Therefore, the majority holds that plaintiff did not as a matter of law voluntarily of his own free will and as a result of an “intelligent choice” place himself in front of that portion of the pipe containing the defect with a full knowledge of the nature and extent of the danger. The Court of Civil Appeals held to the contrary as I understand their opinion.
The case of Grover v. Central Vermont Ry. Co., 96 Vt. 208, 118 Atl. 874, by the Supreme ■ Court of Vermont, upon which the majority rely for their definition of the element of knowledge as the making of an “intelligent choice”, holds that the two elements of the doctrine are fact issues which should be submitted to the jury.
, “* * It is not enough that the plaintiff knew and appreciated the danger. Was it a voluntary act within the meaning of the maxim ? To be voluntary, an act must be done of one’s own free will. The word emphasizes the idea of freedom from constraint. Webster’s New Int. Dict. The true meaning of the volens of the maxim is referred to as ‘intelligent choice’ in Thomas v. Quartermaine, 18 Q.B. Div. 685; and the same idea is aptly expressed in Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Lewis, 103 Ark. 99, 145 S. W. 898, where it is said that the doctrine is based on voluntary exposure to a known danger, and can be applied only when a person may ‘reasonably elect’ whether or not he shall expose himself to it. We said in Carbine’s Adm’r v. Bennington & Rutland R. Co., 61 Vt. 348, 17 Atl. 491, which was a master and servant case, that the doctrine applied if the servant ‘knowingly and deliberately assumes a risk that leads him into immediate danger.’ In effect the English cases hold that mere knowledge of the risk does not necessarily involve consent to the risk, and *203that the maxim does not apply on the mere showing of knowledge of the danger, but only where the circumstances are such as warrant the inference that the plaintiff encountered the risk freely and voluntarily with full knowledge of the nature and extent thereof. Thomas v. Quartermaine, supra; Yarmouth v. France, 19 Q.B. Div. 647; Smith v. Baker, 60 L.J. (N.S.) 683; Broom’s Legal Maxims (7th Ed.) 219. Lord Chancellor Halsbury expresses the opinion in Smith v. Baker that, in order to defeat a plaintiff’s right by the application of the maxim, when he would otherwise be entitled to recover, the jury ought to be able to affirm that he consented to the particular thing being done which would involve the risk, and consented to take the risk upon himself.”
In the case of Fitzgerald v. Connecticut River Paper Co., 155 Mass. 155, 29 N.E. 464, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that the question of whether the plaintiff knew and appreciated the danger was one of fact for the jury.
“We are of opinion that it cannot be said as a matter of law that the plaintiff in the present case, in attempting to go down the steps, voluntarily assumed a risk which she understood and appreciated, and which resulted in the accident. She knew that the steps were icy, and that there was some danger in passing over them. But the evidence tended to show that their condition in regard to slipperiness was constantly changing in different states of the weather, with the spray falling daily from steam-pipes and freezing upon them. Common experience tells us that the degree of slipperiness of ice is not always determinable from an ocular inspection of it. If it were certain that the extent of the danger was obvious to one who saw the surface of the steps, the case would be different. Besides, there was evidence tending to show that she had no way of leaving the defendant’s mill except by going down the steps, and that was important to be considered in deciding whether she took the risk voluntarily. Osborne v. Railroad Co., 21 Q.B. Div. 220, a case in which the plaintiff sued to recover for an injury received in going down some icy stone steps, is precisely in point. It is said in the opinion referring to the language of the justices in Yarmouth v. France, and Thomas v. Quartermaine, supra, that ‘those observations go far to make it hard for a defendant to succeed on such a defense as that relied on here; for it is probable that juries would find for plaintiffs on the ground that they had not full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk. But that cannot be helped. * * * These judgments introduce an important qualification of the maxim, volenti non fit injuria. In the present case the plaintiff may well have misapprehended the *204difficulty and danger which he would encounter in descending the steps; for instance, he might easily be deceived as to the condition of the snow.’ We are of opinion that the case should have been submitted to the jury. Exceptions sustained.”
Plaintiff’s husband was employed to search for, find and then supervise the' correction of latent defects. The testing process was a somewhat elaborate procedure set up for the very purpose of finding latent defects. Basically, it consisted of putting water inside the finished pipe under pressure of a thousand pounds per square inch. The pipe was then hit with a hammer along the area of the seam and the seam was inspected with a magnifying glass in a search for “sweats” etc. The very reason for plaintiff’s husband being there was to find defects that were so latent that they could only be brought out by the pipe being subjected to water under a thousand pound per square inch pressure and then could be seen only under a magnifying glass. In Lucas v. Southern Ry. Co., 1 Ga. App. 810, 57 S.E. 1041, the Court of Appeals of Georgia held that in “inspector” cases there was no distinction between latent and patent defects.
“* * In the ordinary practice of railway companies this duty of inspecting cars, both local and foreign, is necessarily performed through inspectors. Where one contracts to undertake this duty of inspection, he necessarily knows that there would be no need of his services if dangers were not probable; that he himself is employed for the very purpose of ferreting out these dangers, both latent and patent; and that, if he properly discharges his duty, he will be the first person to know of these dangers. He therefore usually has equal means with the master of knowing of every danger incident to his duties. Consequently if, in making the inspection, he is injured by a latent danger, he has but encountered the risk which he assumed as part of his employment and the master is not liable.”
The majority distinguishes this case from the common law “inspector” cases on the grounds that plaintiff’s husband inspected only and did not inspect and fix. The undersigned sees no real distinction. But here plaintiff’s husband had the duty of “supervising” the repair of the defect and defendant must repair the defect under his direction and to his satisfaction, else that particular piece of pipe would be rejected.
Did plaintiff know and appreciate the danger? He knew that there might be defects in the weld. Otherwise there would have been no occasion for his job. He knew also that there was water inside the pipe under pressure of a thousand pounds per square *205inch. He knew that the only thing standing between him and water under such an enormous pressure was the weld itself. It becomes a fact issue as to whether or not he knew and appreciated the danger which might follow from applying water under such pressure to a defective weld. In the case at bar, defendant requested a number of special issues raising the question of plaintiff’s husband’s knowledge of the danger which the trial court refused. Defendant complained of this refusal in its motion for a new trial, but did not carry it forward into assignments of error in the Court of Civil Appeals, apparently electing to stand only on its contention that the volenti doctrine was raised as a matter of law.
The doctrine of assumption of risk raised in cases of employees versus employers penalizes the employee for having the courage to face danger and for his loyalty to his employer in carrying on his job in the face of danger. For that reason it is considered a harsh doctrine and has been generally abolished in areas of the law where the doctrine has come before a legislative body. The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria is closely parallel to it in that it may penalize courage in the face of danger, but loyalty to the particular defendant is not one of the motives which inspires the plaintiff to face danger. In these “inspector” cases, where the duties of the inspector may conflict with the interest of the defendant, such a loyalty is not present.
A second distinction between this type of case and that between an employee versus employer is that the defendant has no command authority over the plaintiff.
Opinion delivered March 7, 1951.