Siragusa v. Swedish Hospital
60 Wash. 2d 310, 373 P.2d 767, 1962 Wash. LEXIS 310 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer has a duty to exercise reasonable care to furnish employees with a reasonably safe place to work. If this duty is negligently breached, the employer may not assert assumption of risk as a defense solely because the injured employee was aware or should have known of the dangerous condition, though if the employee's voluntary exposure to the risk is unreasonable, recovery may be barred by contributory negligence.
Facts:
- Maria Siragusa was employed as a nurse's aid for Swedish Hospital.
- She was performing her duties in room No. 130, a six-patient ward, giving regular care to patients.
- A washbasin in the room was located on the wall directly behind the door, within the door's swing.
- A metal hook, shaped like a semiarc with a curl, was on the inside of the door for hospital personnel to open it with a forearm.
- While Maria Siragusa stood by the basin, a patient in a wheelchair pushed the door open to enter the room.
- The metal hook on the door struck Maria Siragusa in the upper portion of her back, causing injuries.
- The architect who designed the room knew the door would contact the washbasin when fully opened and placed a rubber knob on the door to absorb forceful contact, but no other stops were used.
- Maria Siragusa was not aware of any patients being out of the room at that early hour and did not expect someone in a wheelchair to swing open the door.
Procedural Posture:
- Maria Siragusa brought an action for personal injuries against Swedish Hospital, alleging negligence for failing to furnish a reasonably safe place to work.
- Swedish Hospital generally denied negligence and, by way of affirmative defenses, alleged contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of the risk.
- At the close of all evidence, the trial court granted Swedish Hospital’s motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
- The trial court ruled that Maria Siragusa assumed the risk of harm as a matter of law and was barred from recovery.
- Judgment of dismissal was entered by the trial court.
- Maria Siragusa appealed the judgment of dismissal.
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 the common law doctrine of assumption of risk, as traditionally applied in master-servant relationships, bar an employee from recovering damages for injuries caused by an employer's negligence if the employee was aware of the dangerous condition but acted reasonably in exposing themselves to it while in the course of employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Hunter, J.
No, the common law doctrine of assumption of risk, as traditionally applied, should not bar an employee from recovering damages for injuries caused by an employer's negligence if the employee was aware of the dangerous condition but acted reasonably in exposing themselves to it while in the course of employment. The Court re-examines the doctrine of assumption of risk in master-servant cases, concluding that its historical purpose of insulating employers from liability is no longer relevant given modern social attitudes and workmen’s compensation legislation. The Court finds the notion of 'assumption of risk' as a defense for a negligent employer to be a 'pure fiction' that contradicts the employer's fundamental duty to furnish a reasonably safe place to work, as established in cases like Hull v. Davenport. The Court holds that an employer's negligent failure in this duty cannot be defended by asserting that the employee merely knew or should have known of the dangerous condition. However, if the employee’s voluntary exposure to the risk is unreasonable under the circumstances, recovery may still be barred by contributory negligence. Knowledge and appreciation of the risk are considered important factors in determining both employer negligence and employee contributory negligence. The Court adopts a rule similar to Missouri's, where a servant assumes only those risks inherent in the work after the master has exercised ordinary care, not risks arising from the master's negligence. Prior inconsistent decisions are expressly overruled.
Concurring - Ott, J.
Concurs in the result that a new trial should be granted. Justice Ott agrees with the adoption of the Missouri rule, as stated in Hines v. Continental Baking Co., which constitutes a modification of the doctrine of assumption of risk in the state. However, Justice Ott criticizes the majority's decision to overrule prior inconsistent cases without precisely designating which of the approximately 160 prior decisions are still good law and which are expressly overruled. He argues that the vague overruling statement will 'create utter chaos for the bench and bar' in their attempt to determine the present status of the law.
Analysis:
This case represents a pivotal moment in tort law, significantly curtailing the scope of the assumption of risk doctrine in master-servant relationships. By effectively subsuming many aspects of assumption of risk under contributory negligence, the court reinforces the employer's positive duty to provide a safe workplace. This aligns with evolving public policy and the advent of workers' compensation, shifting the focus from an employee's mere knowledge of a hazard to the reasonableness of their conduct. The decision makes it more challenging for employers to escape liability for their own negligence and places a greater emphasis on proactive safety measures. It ensures that employees who act reasonably, despite knowing of a danger negligently created or maintained by their employer, are not unfairly penalized.
