incurred risk is based upon doctrine in Indiana

1980Brazil Block Coal Company v. Hoodlet, [ 129 Ind. 327 , 27 N.E. 741 ] supra; Bidgway v. Yenny (1944), 223 Ind. 16 , 57 N.E.2d 581 ; Pierce v. Clemens, [ 113 Ind.App. 65 , 46 N.E.2d 836 ] supra.” 139 Ind.App. at 129 , 210 N.E.2d at 88 .

1965Co. v. Hoffman, supra; Pierce v. Clemens, supra. The doctrine of incurred risk is based upon the proposition that one incurs all the ordinary and usual risks of an act upon which he voluntarily enters, so long as those risks are known and understood by him, or could be readily discernible by a reasonable and prudent man under like or similar circumstances.

1980Brazil Block Coal Company v. Hoodlet, [ 129 Ind. 327 , 27 N.E. 741 ] supra; Bidgway v. Yenny (1944), 223 Ind. 16 , 57 N.E.2d 581 ; Pierce v. Clemens, [ 113 Ind.App. 65 , 46 N.E.2d 836 ] supra.” 139 Ind.App. at 129 , 210 N.E.2d at 88 .

1980Brazil Block Coal Company v. Hoodlet, [ 129 Ind. 327 , 27 N.E. 741 ] supra; Bidgway v. Yenny (1944), 223 Ind. 16 , 57 N.E.2d 581 ; Pierce v. Clemens, [ 113 Ind.App. 65 , 46 N.E.2d 836 ] supra.” 139 Ind.App. at 129 , 210 N.E.2d at 88 .

1986In Borton v. Lavendusky (1985), Ind.App., 486 N.E.2d 639 , we stated: The doctrine of incurred risk is based upon the proposition one incurs all ordinary and usual risks of an act upon which he voluntarily enters, so long as those risks are known and understood by him, or could be readily discernible by a reasonable and prudent man under like or similar circumstances.

1980Brazil Block Coal Company v. Hoodlet, [ 129 Ind. 327 , 27 N.E. 741 ] supra; Bidgway v. Yenny (1944), 223 Ind. 16 , 57 N.E.2d 581 ; Pierce v. Clemens, [ 113 Ind.App. 65 , 46 N.E.2d 836 ] supra.” 139 Ind.App. at 129 , 210 N.E.2d at 88 .

1980Brazil Block Coal Company v. Hoodlet, [ 129 Ind. 327 , 27 N.E. 741 ] supra; Ridgway v. Yenny (1944), 223 Ind. 16 , 57 N.E.2d 581 ; Pierce v. Clemens, [ 113 Ind. App. 65 , 46 N.E.2d 836 ] supra." 139 Ind. App. at 129 , 210 N.E.2d at 88 .

1980Brazil Block Coal Company v. Hoodlet, [ 129 Ind. 327 , 27 N.E. 741 ] supra; Bidgway v. Yenny (1944), 223 Ind. 16 , 57 N.E.2d 581 ; Pierce v. Clemens, [ 113 Ind.App. 65 , 46 N.E.2d 836 ] supra.” 139 Ind.App. at 129 , 210 N.E.2d at 88 .

1980Brazil Block Coal Company v. Hoodlet, [ 129 Ind. 327 , 27 N.E. 741 ] supra; Ridgway v. Yenny (1944), 223 Ind. 16 , 57 N.E.2d 581 ; Pierce v. Clemens, [ 113 Ind. App. 65 , 46 N.E.2d 836 ] supra." 139 Ind. App. at 129 , 210 N.E.2d at 88 .

1976The Indiana courts have enunciated the following definition of contributory negligence: “ ‘It is elementary that contributory negligence is the failure of a person to exercise for his own safety that degree of care and caution which an ordinary reasonable and prudent person in a similar situation would exercise. . . .’ ” Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc. v. Scott (1973), 261 Ind. 27, 37-8 , 300 N.E.2d 50, 57 [citing Isenberg v. Ortona Parle Recreational Center, Inc. (Fla. App. 1964), 160 So.2d 132, 134 .] See also Jenkins v. City of Fort Wayne (1965), 139 Ind. App. 1, 3-4 , 210 N.E.2d 390,

1976The Indiana courts have enunciated the following definition of contributory negligence: “ ‘It is elementary that contributory negligence is the failure of a person to exercise for his own safety that degree of care and caution which an ordinary reasonable and prudent person in a similar situation would exercise. . . .’ ” Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc. v. Scott (1973), 261 Ind. 27, 37-8 , 300 N.E.2d 50, 57 [citing Isenberg v. Ortona Parle Recreational Center, Inc. (Fla. App. 1964), 160 So.2d 132, 134 .] See also Jenkins v. City of Fort Wayne (1965), 139 Ind. App. 1, 3-4 , 210 N.E.2d 390,

1976The Indiana courts have enunciated the following definition of contributory negligence: "`It is elementary that contributory negligence is the failure of a person to exercise for his own safety that degree of care and caution which an ordinary reasonable and prudent person in a similar situation would exercise... .'" Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc. v. Scott (1973), 261 Ind. 27, 37-8 , 300 N.E.2d 50, 57 [citing Isenberg v. Ortona Park Recreational Center, Inc. (Fla. App. 1964), 160 So.2d 132, 134 .] See also Jenkins v. City of Fort Wayne (1965), 139 Ind. App. 1, 3-4 , 210 N.E.2d 390, 392

1976The Indiana courts have enunciated the following definition of contributory negligence: “ ‘It is elementary that contributory negligence is the failure of a person to exercise for his own safety that degree of care and caution which an ordinary reasonable and prudent person in a similar situation would exercise. . . .’ ” Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc. v. Scott (1973), 261 Ind. 27, 37-8 , 300 N.E.2d 50, 57 [citing Isenberg v. Ortona Parle Recreational Center, Inc. (Fla. App. 1964), 160 So.2d 132, 134 .] See also Jenkins v. City of Fort Wayne (1965), 139 Ind. App. 1, 3-4 , 210 N.E.2d 390,

1976The doctrine of incurred risk has been defined as follows: “The doctrine of incurred risk is based upon the proposition that one incurs all the ordinary and usual risks of an act upon which he voluntarily enters, so long as those risks are known and understood by him, or could be readily discernible by the reasonable and prudent man under like or similar circumstances. . . .” Stallings v. Dick, supra, 139 Ind. App. at 129 , 210 N.E.2d at 88 . 9 See also Sullivan v. Baylor (1975), 163 Ind. App. 600 , 325 N.E.2d 475 ; 477; Christmas v. Christmas, supra, 305 N.E.2d at 895 .

1976The doctrine of incurred risk has been defined as follows: “The doctrine of incurred risk is based upon the proposition that one incurs all the ordinary and usual risks of an act upon which he voluntarily enters, so long as those risks are known and understood by him, or could be readily discernible by the reasonable and prudent man under like or similar circumstances. . . .” Stallings v. Dick, supra, 139 Ind. App. at 129 , 210 N.E.2d at 88 . 9 See also Sullivan v. Baylor (1975), 163 Ind. App. 600 , 325 N.E.2d 475 ; 477; Christmas v. Christmas, supra, 305 N.E.2d at 895 .

1976The doctrine of incurred risk has been defined as follows: "The doctrine of incurred risk is based upon the proposition that one incurs all the ordinary and usual risks of an act upon which he voluntarily enters, so long as those risks are known and understood by him, or could be readily discernible by a reasonable and prudent man under like or similar circumstances... ." Stallings v. Dick, supra, 139 Ind. App. at 129 , 210 N.E.2d at 88 . [9] See also Sullivan v. Baylor (1975), Ind. App., 325 N.E.2d 475, 477 ; Christmas v. Christmas, supra, 305 N.E.2d at 895 .

1976The doctrine of incurred risk has been defined as follows: “The doctrine of incurred risk is based upon the proposition that one incurs all the ordinary and usual risks of an act upon which he voluntarily enters, so long as those risks are known and understood by him, or could be readily discernible by the reasonable and prudent man under like or similar circumstances. . . .” Stallings v. Dick, supra, 139 Ind. App. at 129 , 210 N.E.2d at 88 . 9 See also Sullivan v. Baylor (1975), 163 Ind. App. 600 , 325 N.E.2d 475 ; 477; Christmas v. Christmas, supra, 305 N.E.2d at 895 .

1974(Citations omitted.)” This court discussed incurred risk in the case of Indiana, etc. Oil Co. v. O’Brien (1903), 160 Ind. 266 , 65 N.E. 918 , 66 N.E. 742 , as follows: “. . . it must appear that the injured person had knowledge of the danger in question and appreciated it, and voluntarily, or of his own choice, exposed himself to or encountered such danger, thereby incurring, or taking upon himself, the risk incident thereto. . . .” It is our opinion that the evidence adduced at trial establishes as a matter of law that the plaintiff incurred the risk of his injuries.

1974(Citations omitted.)” This court discussed incurred risk in the case of Indiana, etc. Oil Co. v. O’Brien (1903), 160 Ind. 266 , 65 N.E. 918 , 66 N.E. 742 , as follows: “. . . it must appear that the injured person had knowledge of the danger in question and appreciated it, and voluntarily, or of his own choice, exposed himself to or encountered such danger, thereby incurring, or taking upon himself, the risk incident thereto. . . .” It is our opinion that the evidence adduced at trial establishes as a matter of law that the plaintiff incurred the risk of his injuries.

1974(Citations omitted.)” This court discussed incurred risk in the case of Indiana, etc. Oil Co. v. O’Brien (1903), 160 Ind. 266 , 65 N.E. 918 , 66 N.E. 742 , as follows: “. . . it must appear that the injured person had knowledge of the danger in question and appreciated it, and voluntarily, or of his own choice, exposed himself to or encountered such danger, thereby incurring, or taking upon himself, the risk incident thereto. . . .” It is our opinion that the evidence adduced at trial establishes as a matter of law that the plaintiff incurred the risk of his injuries.