Ray v. Downes
576 N.W.2d 896 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff who voluntarily encounters a known danger does not, as a matter of law, assume the risk of a defendant's subsequent, unexpected negligence. The defense of assumption of risk does not apply when a plaintiff's acceptance of a general risk does not include consent for the defendant to be relieved of their duty of reasonable care.
Facts:
- Harold Downes hired Donald Ray as a farm laborer and also hired custom harvester John Wieezorek, whose employee, Phillip Waldner, drove a semi-tractor/trailer.
- On October 16, 1995, the ground near a storage bin was too high for a grain auger to fit under Waldner's trailer.
- Downes directed Ray to scrape the ground level with a loader, which he did.
- Ray then volunteered to help Waldner position the auger under the trailer while it was moving.
- Ray and Waldner agreed that Waldner would drive the truck slowly forward while Ray pushed the auger into place, and Ray would then use hand signals and 'holler' for Waldner to stop.
- Ray positioned himself three to four feet in front of the trailer's rear wheels to maneuver the auger.
- When the auger was in position, Ray signaled and yelled for Waldner to stop.
- Waldner did not stop the semi-trailer, and its wheels ran over Ray's leg.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Ray and Levena Ray (Plaintiffs) filed a personal injury lawsuit in a South Dakota circuit court (trial court) against Harold Downes, John Wieezorek, and Phillip Waldner (Defendants).
- Defendant Downes brought a cross-claim against Defendants Waldner and Wieczorek.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Ray had assumed the risk of his injury as a matter of law.
- The circuit court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.
- The Rays (Appellants) appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff who voluntarily positions himself near a moving vehicle, while relying on the driver to stop on command, assume the risk of injury as a matter of law when the driver fails to stop, thereby barring a negligence claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Gilbertson, J.
No. A plaintiff's voluntary encounter with a known danger does not constitute consent to a defendant's subsequent negligence. Ray assumed the general risks of working near farm equipment but did not assume the specific risk that Waldner would fail to exercise reasonable care by disregarding their agreed-upon signals. The court distinguished between consenting to a known, static risk and consenting to future negligence from another party. Ray's awareness of the danger of being near the wheels was not consent to relieve Waldner of his duty to stop the truck as planned. Under the assumption of risk doctrine, a plaintiff is not bound to anticipate the negligent conduct of others. Because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Ray had knowledge of and consented to the specific risk of Waldner's negligence, summary judgment was inappropriate.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Miller, C.J.
Yes. A plaintiff who, by his own admission, knows a risk, appreciates its character, and voluntarily accepts it when reasonable alternatives exist assumes that risk as a matter of law. The undisputed facts and Ray's own deposition testimony conclusively established all three elements of assumption of risk. Ray admitted he had actual knowledge of the danger, appreciated its character based on his experience, and voluntarily accepted it for convenience when safer alternatives were available, such as having the truck stop completely before positioning the auger. Ray was aware of the loud environment and the potential for signals to be missed. By knowingly placing himself in a position of obvious danger, Ray assumed the risk of injury, and the trial court's grant of summary judgment should have been affirmed in its entirety.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the scope of the assumption of risk defense at the summary judgment stage. It clarifies that a plaintiff's awareness of a general danger does not automatically absolve a defendant of a subsequent, specific act of negligence. The ruling distinguishes between assuming the risk of a static condition and assuming the risk of another's future conduct, thereby preserving the defendant's duty of care. This makes it more difficult for defendants to have negligence cases dismissed before trial on assumption of risk grounds, pushing the analysis of the parties' respective faults to the jury under a comparative negligence framework.
Unlock the full brief for Ray v. Downes