NEGLIGENCE - ASSUMPTION OF RISK - NECESSITY FOR CONTRACTUAL RELATION

Authors

Edward H. Schlaudt, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

While walking behind defendant through woodland, plaintiff suffered an eye injury caused by the negligence of the defendant in bending over a small sapling and allowing it to fly back and strike plaintiff. Verdict and judgment were for plaintiff. Defendant moved for a directed verdict on the ground of assumption of risk, and appealed from a denial of the motion. Held, from the facts of the case, it cannot be ruled as a matter of law that the plaintiff knew and comprehended the danger which caused his injury and that he voluntarily exposed himself thereto, and, therefore, the judgment must be sustained. However, the case is a proper one for the application of the doctrine of assumption of risk, since no contractual relation is necessary to support this doctrine. Craig v. Parkhurst, (Vt. 1941) 18 A. (2d) 173.

Recommended Citation

Edward H. Schlaudt, NEGLIGENCE - ASSUMPTION OF RISK - NECESSITY FOR CONTRACTUAL RELATION, 40 Mich. L. Rev. 137 (1941).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol40/iss1/24