9 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nebraska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hickman v. Parks Construction Companygreen2 sentences2000In Winslow v. Hammer, 247 Neb. 418, 427-28 , 527 N.W.2d 631, 637 (1995) (quoting Sikyta v. Arrow Stage Lines, 238 Neb. 289 , 470 N.W.2d 724 (1991)), we stated that “ ““ “a plaintiff does not assume a risk of harm arising from the defendant’s conduct unless he then knows of the existence of the risk and appreciates its unreasonable character, or the danger involved, including the magnitude thereof, and voluntarily accepts the risk.”. . ” The doctrine of assumption of risk “ ‘applies to known dangers and not to those things from which, in possibility, danger may flow.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) 2000In Winslow v. Hammer, 247 Neb. 418, 427-28 , 527 N.W.2d 631, 637 (1995) (quoting Sikyta v. Arrow Stage Lines, 238 Neb. 289 , 470 N.W.2d 724 (1991)), we stated that “ ““ “a plaintiff does not assume a risk of harm arising from the defendant’s conduct unless he then knows of the existence of the risk and appreciates its unreasonable character, or the danger involved, including the magnitude thereof, and voluntarily accepts the risk.”. . ” The doctrine of assumption of risk “ ‘applies to known dangers and not to those things from which, in possibility, danger may flow.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) | 1 | 2 |
Mandery v. Chronicle Broadcasting Co.green2 sentences1990In Carnes v. Weesner, 229 Neb. 641, 647 , 428 N.W.2d 493, 497 (1988), we quoted with approval the holding in Mandery v. Chronicle Broadcasting Co., 228 Neb. 391 , 423 N.W.2d 115 (1988), on the assumption of risk doctrine as follows: “ ‘Before the defense of assumption of risk is submissible to a jury, evidence must show that the plaintiff (1) knew of the danger, (2) understood the danger, and (3) voluntarily exposed himself or herself to the danger which proximately caused the plaintiff’s damage.’ ” In the Carnes case, the plaintiff had traversed an icy parking lot and reached her destination 1990In Carnes v. Weesner, 229 Neb. 641, 647 , 428 N.W.2d 493, 497 (1988), we quoted with approval the holding in Mandery v. Chronicle Broadcasting Co., 228 Neb. 391 , 423 N.W.2d 115 (1988), on the assumption of risk doctrine as follows: “ ‘Before the defense of assumption of risk is submissible to a jury, evidence must show that the plaintiff (1) knew of the danger, (2) understood the danger, and (3) voluntarily exposed himself or herself to the danger which proximately caused the plaintiff’s damage.’ ” In the Carnes case, the plaintiff had traversed an icy parking lot and reached her destination | 1 | 2 |
Winslow v. Hammergreen2 sentences2000In Winslow v. Hammer, 247 Neb. 418, 427-28 , 527 N.W.2d 631, 637 (1995) (quoting Sikyta v. Arrow Stage Lines, 238 Neb. 289 , 470 N.W.2d 724 (1991)), we stated that “ ““ “a plaintiff does not assume a risk of harm arising from the defendant’s conduct unless he then knows of the existence of the risk and appreciates its unreasonable character, or the danger involved, including the magnitude thereof, and voluntarily accepts the risk.”. . ” The doctrine of assumption of risk “ ‘applies to known dangers and not to those things from which, in possibility, danger may flow.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) 2000In Winslow v. Hammer, 247 Neb. 418, 427-28 , 527 N.W.2d 631, 637 (1995) (quoting Sikyta v. Arrow Stage Lines, 238 Neb. 289 , 470 N.W.2d 724 (1991)), we stated that “ ““ “a plaintiff does not assume a risk of harm arising from the defendant’s conduct unless he then knows of the existence of the risk and appreciates its unreasonable character, or the danger involved, including the magnitude thereof, and voluntarily accepts the risk.”. . ” The doctrine of assumption of risk “ ‘applies to known dangers and not to those things from which, in possibility, danger may flow.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) | 1 | 1 |
Carnes v. Weesnergreen2 sentences1990In Carnes v. Weesner, 229 Neb. 641, 647 , 428 N.W.2d 493, 497 (1988), we quoted with approval the holding in Mandery v. Chronicle Broadcasting Co., 228 Neb. 391 , 423 N.W.2d 115 (1988), on the assumption of risk doctrine as follows: “ ‘Before the defense of assumption of risk is submissible to a jury, evidence must show that the plaintiff (1) knew of the danger, (2) understood the danger, and (3) voluntarily exposed himself or herself to the danger which proximately caused the plaintiff’s damage.’ ” In the Carnes case, the plaintiff had traversed an icy parking lot and reached her destination 1990In Carnes v. Weesner, 229 Neb. 641, 647 , 428 N.W.2d 493, 497 (1988), we quoted with approval the holding in Mandery v. Chronicle Broadcasting Co., 228 Neb. 391 , 423 N.W.2d 115 (1988), on the assumption of risk doctrine as follows: “ ‘Before the defense of assumption of risk is submissible to a jury, evidence must show that the plaintiff (1) knew of the danger, (2) understood the danger, and (3) voluntarily exposed himself or herself to the danger which proximately caused the plaintiff’s damage.’ ” In the Carnes case, the plaintiff had traversed an icy parking lot and reached her destination | 1 | 1 |
Lambertus v. Buckleygreen2 sentences1988As stated in Lambertus v. Buckley, 206 Neb. 440, 443 , 293 N.W.2d 110, 112 (1980), “ Tt is a well-established rule in the federal courts and the Nebraska court that a jury verdict may not be impeached as to occurrences in the jury room which inhere in the verdict by an affidavit of a juror.’ ” The trial court did not err in refusing to give the assumption of risk instruction. 1988As stated in Lambertus v. Buckley, 206 Neb. 440, 443 , 293 N.W.2d 110, 112 (1980), “ Tt is a well-established rule in the federal courts and the Nebraska court that a jury verdict may not be impeached as to occurrences in the jury room which inhere in the verdict by an affidavit of a juror.’ ” The trial court did not err in refusing to give the assumption of risk instruction. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schwab v. Allou Corporation
green
2 sentences1998Schwab v. Allou Corp., 177 Neb. 342, 128 N.W.2d 835 (1964). 1998Schwab v. Allou Corp., 177 Neb. 342, 128 N.W.2d 835 (1964). | 2 | 1984–1998 |
Burke Ex Rel. Burke v. McKay
green
2 sentences2020In Burke v. McKay, 268 Neb. 14 , 679 N.W.2d 418 (2004), an action involving a claim that a rodeo stock provider furnished an unusually dangerous bucking horse to a high school rodeo, the Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff rider’s acknowl- edged familiarity with the general risks of injury inherent in rodeo competition could not form the basis of an assumption of risk defense. 2020In Burke v. McKay, 268 Neb. 14 , 679 N.W.2d 418 (2004), an action involving a claim that a rodeo stock provider furnished an unusually dangerous bucking horse to a high school rodeo, the Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff rider’s acknowl- edged familiarity with the general risks of injury inherent in rodeo competition could not form the basis of an assumption of risk defense. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Sikyta v. Arrow Stage Lines, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000In Winslow v. Hammer, 247 Neb. 418, 427-28 , 527 N.W.2d 631, 637 (1995) (quoting Sikyta v. Arrow Stage Lines, 238 Neb. 289 , 470 N.W.2d 724 (1991)), we stated that “ ““ “a plaintiff does not assume a risk of harm arising from the defendant’s conduct unless he then knows of the existence of the risk and appreciates its unreasonable character, or the danger involved, including the magnitude thereof, and voluntarily accepts the risk.”. . ” The doctrine of assumption of risk “ ‘applies to known dangers and not to those things from which, in possibility, danger may flow.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) 2000In Winslow v. Hammer, 247 Neb. 418, 427-28 , 527 N.W.2d 631, 637 (1995) (quoting Sikyta v. Arrow Stage Lines, 238 Neb. 289 , 470 N.W.2d 724 (1991)), we stated that “ ““ “a plaintiff does not assume a risk of harm arising from the defendant’s conduct unless he then knows of the existence of the risk and appreciates its unreasonable character, or the danger involved, including the magnitude thereof, and voluntarily accepts the risk.”. . ” The doctrine of assumption of risk “ ‘applies to known dangers and not to those things from which, in possibility, danger may flow.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Vanek v. Prohaska
green
2 sentences2000In Winslow v. Hammer, 247 Neb. 418, 427-28 , 527 N.W.2d 631, 637 (1995) (quoting Sikyta v. Arrow Stage Lines, 238 Neb. 289 , 470 N.W.2d 724 (1991)), we stated that “ ““ “a plaintiff does not assume a risk of harm arising from the defendant’s conduct unless he then knows of the existence of the risk and appreciates its unreasonable character, or the danger involved, including the magnitude thereof, and voluntarily accepts the risk.”. . ” The doctrine of assumption of risk “ ‘applies to known dangers and not to those things from which, in possibility, danger may flow.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) 2000In Winslow v. Hammer, 247 Neb. 418, 427-28 , 527 N.W.2d 631, 637 (1995) (quoting Sikyta v. Arrow Stage Lines, 238 Neb. 289 , 470 N.W.2d 724 (1991)), we stated that “ ““ “a plaintiff does not assume a risk of harm arising from the defendant’s conduct unless he then knows of the existence of the risk and appreciates its unreasonable character, or the danger involved, including the magnitude thereof, and voluntarily accepts the risk.”. . ” The doctrine of assumption of risk “ ‘applies to known dangers and not to those things from which, in possibility, danger may flow.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Williamson v. Provident Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000As we noted in Williamson v. Provident Group, Inc., 250 Neb. 553 , 550 N.W.2d 338 (1996), this type of general knowledge is insufficient to support an assumption of risk defense. 2000As we noted in Williamson v. Provident Group, Inc., 250 Neb. 553 , 550 N.W.2d 338 (1996), this type of general knowledge is insufficient to support an assumption of risk defense. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Dukat v. Leiserv, Inc.
green
1 sentence1998After concluding the assumption of risk instruction was reversible error, the Court of Appeals “deem[ed] it necessary to discuss Dukat’s other assignments of error because those questions may recur on retrial.” Id. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Bray v. Kate, Inc.
green
2 sentences1994Bray v. Kate, Inc., 235 Neb. 315 , 454 N.W.2d 698 (1990). 1994Bray v. Kate, Inc., 235 Neb. 315 , 454 N.W.2d 698 (1990). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Tichenor v. Lohaus
green
2 sentences1984Schwab v. Allou Corp., 177 Neb. 342 , 128 N.W.2d 835 (1964); Tichenor v. Lohaus, 212 Neb. 218 , 322 N.W.2d 629 (1982). 1984Schwab v. Allou Corp., 177 Neb. 342 , 128 N.W.2d 835 (1964); Tichenor v. Lohaus, 212 Neb. 218 , 322 N.W.2d 629 (1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.