Reed v. Carlyle & Martin, Inc.
202 S.E.2d 874, 214 Va. 592 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person is contributorily negligent as a matter of law when they expose themselves to a danger that is open and obvious, as the test for negligence is not what the person subjectively knew, but what a person exercising reasonable care should have known. The existence of a custom or usage cannot excuse conduct that is otherwise negligent if the custom itself is not reasonably safe.
Facts:
- Grayson C. Reed, an experienced farm laborer who had 'always been a farmer,' was employed on a farm in Loudoun County.
- His employer purchased a used ensilage wagon, manufactured by Grove Manufacturing Company, which featured exposed revolving beaters with metal spikes for unloading.
- The wagon's drag chains broke, and a repairman from Carlyle & Anderson, Inc. advised that the wagon must be unloaded before it could be repaired.
- Reed and a co-worker began unloading the wagon manually, leaving the tractor running, which kept the beaters and conveyor belt in operation.
- Reed stated he was familiar with this type of wagon, calling it 'basically the same' as others he had used.
- To unload the wagon the 'easiest' and 'quickest' way, Reed climbed atop the five-foot deep, 'right slippery' load of ensilage and began throwing it into the moving beaters with a pitchfork.
- While standing on a sloping bank of ensilage he had created, the material gave way, and he fell into the revolving beaters, sustaining severe injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Grayson C. Reed filed separate actions for damages in a Virginia trial court against Grove Manufacturing Company, Carlyle & Martin, Inc., and Carlyle & Anderson, Inc.
- After discovery depositions were taken, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motions, finding the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, and entered final judgments for the defendants.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, was granted writs of error to appeal the trial court's judgments to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a plaintiff who is an experienced user of farm equipment contributorily negligent as a matter of law when he is injured after intentionally working in close proximity to the equipment's open and obvious moving parts to complete a task more easily and quickly?
Opinions:
Majority - Carrico, J.
Yes, the plaintiff is contributorily negligent as a matter of law because he failed to exercise reasonable care for his own safety by exposing himself to an open and obvious danger. The test for contributory negligence is objective, based on whether a person exercising reasonable care should have known of the peril, not on the plaintiff's subjective belief that he 'didn’t feel any danger.' As an experienced farmer familiar with this type of machinery, the plaintiff should have recognized the risk posed by the exposed, revolving, spike-like beaters, which constituted an open and obvious danger. His decision to work near them was a deliberate choice for speed and ease, not an unavoidable risk. Furthermore, an argument that such a practice was customary is unavailing, as a custom cannot excuse conduct that is itself not reasonably safe.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the objective standard for contributory negligence under the 'open and obvious danger' doctrine. It establishes that a plaintiff's personal assessment of risk is legally irrelevant when a reasonable person would have appreciated the danger. The decision significantly limits recovery for plaintiffs in contributory negligence jurisdictions who are injured while taking known risks for the sake of convenience or efficiency. It also curtails the 'custom and usage' defense by holding that a customary practice is no excuse for negligence if the custom itself is inherently unsafe.
