Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 1933–2003 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee 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 |
|---|---|---|
Perez v. McConkeygreen2 sentences2003Perez v. McConkey, 872 S.W.2d 897, 906 (Tenn.1994). 1994The case of Perez v. McConkey, 872 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn.1994), provided the opportunity to re-examine the doctrine of assumption of the risk in the light of McIntyre . | 2 | 3 |
Kendall Oil Company v. Paynegreen2 sentences2000Even though its lineage can be traced to the doctrine of assumption of the risk, the Tennessee Supreme Court has declined to treat the Aopen and 3 The open and obvious doctrine provided that a premises owner was not liable for injuries caused by dangers that are Aobvious, reasonably apparent, or as well known to the invitee as to the owner.@ Kendall Oil Co. v. Payne, 41 Tenn. App. 201, 205 , 293 S.W.2d 40, 42 (1955). 2000Even though its lineage can be traced to the doctrine of assumption of the risk, the Tennessee Supreme Court has declined to treat the Aopen and 3 The open and obvious doctrine provided that a premises owner was not liable for injuries caused by dangers that are Aobvious, reasonably apparent, or as well known to the invitee as to the owner.@ Kendall Oil Co. v. Payne, 41 Tenn. App. 201, 205 , 293 S.W.2d 40, 42 (1955). | 1 | 1 |
Rule v. Empire Gas Corp.green1 sentence1990In my view, a prima facie case of assumption of the risk was not established yet the court reverses the trial court for omitting to charge the assumption of the risk doctrine where the charge was not demanded in writing, as required by T.R.Civ.P., Rule 51.01. 1 The succinct holding in Rule, cited in the majority opinion, is: We hold that Rule 51.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure has not abolished or altered the rule announced in the Provence [v. Williams, 62 Tenn.App. 371 , 462 S.W.2d 885 (1970)] and Holmes v. American Bakeries Co., 62 Tenn.App. 601 , 466 S.W.2d 502 (1970)] cases, s | 1 | 1 |
Ellithorpe v. Ford Motor Companygreen1 sentence1984Ellithorpe v. Ford Motor Company, 503 S.W.2d 516, 522 (Tenn.1973) (emphasis supplied). *499 Defendant relies heavily upon three Tennessee cases in which assumption of the risk was found to exist —Merritt v. Carr, 621 S.W.2d 740 (Tenn.App.1980); Frazier v. Moore, 651 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn.App.1983); and Kynch v. Tenoke Associates (Tenn. App. filed April 5, 1983, at Jackson). | 1 | 1 |
Turess v. New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroadgreen1 sentence1933Law, 314, 40 A., 614 , supra.” Fleckenstein v. Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co., supra. The principles applicable to negligence with respect to master and servant are the same as in this case, except that ordinarily the servant assumed the risk incident to such work, whereas in this ease the doctrine of the assumption of the risk does not apply, as the plaintiff had as much right to be in the street as the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Provence v. Williams
green
2 sentences1990In my view, a prima facie case of assumption of the risk was not established yet the court reverses the trial court for omitting to charge the assumption of the risk doctrine where the charge was not demanded in writing, as required by T.R.Civ.P., Rule 51.01. 1 The succinct holding in Rule, cited in the majority opinion, is: We hold that Rule 51.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure has not abolished or altered the rule announced in the Provence [v. Williams, 62 Tenn.App. 371 , 462 S.W.2d 885 (1970)] and Holmes v. American Bakeries Co., 62 Tenn.App. 601 , 466 S.W.2d 502 (1970)] cases, s 1990In my view, a prima facie case of assumption of the risk was not established yet the court reverses the trial court for omitting to charge the assumption of the risk doctrine where the charge was not demanded in writing, as required by T.R.Civ.P., Rule 51.01. 1 The succinct holding in Rule, cited in the majority opinion, is: We hold that Rule 51.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure has not abolished or altered the rule announced in the Provence [v. Williams, 62 Tenn.App. 371 , 462 S.W.2d 885 (1970)] and Holmes v. American Bakeries Co., 62 Tenn.App. 601 , 466 S.W.2d 502 (1970)] cases, s | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Holmes v. American Bakeries Co.
green
2 sentences1990In my view, a prima facie case of assumption of the risk was not established yet the court reverses the trial court for omitting to charge the assumption of the risk doctrine where the charge was not demanded in writing, as required by T.R.Civ.P., Rule 51.01. 1 The succinct holding in Rule, cited in the majority opinion, is: We hold that Rule 51.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure has not abolished or altered the rule announced in the Provence [v. Williams, 62 Tenn.App. 371 , 462 S.W.2d 885 (1970)] and Holmes v. American Bakeries Co., 62 Tenn.App. 601 , 466 S.W.2d 502 (1970)] cases, s 1990In my view, a prima facie case of assumption of the risk was not established yet the court reverses the trial court for omitting to charge the assumption of the risk doctrine where the charge was not demanded in writing, as required by T.R.Civ.P., Rule 51.01. 1 The succinct holding in Rule, cited in the majority opinion, is: We hold that Rule 51.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure has not abolished or altered the rule announced in the Provence [v. Williams, 62 Tenn.App. 371 , 462 S.W.2d 885 (1970)] and Holmes v. American Bakeries Co., 62 Tenn.App. 601 , 466 S.W.2d 502 (1970)] cases, s | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Merritt v. Carr
neutral
1 sentence1984Ellithorpe v. Ford Motor Company, 503 S.W.2d 516, 522 (Tenn.1973) (emphasis supplied). *499 Defendant relies heavily upon three Tennessee cases in which assumption of the risk was found to exist —Merritt v. Carr, 621 S.W.2d 740 (Tenn.App.1980); Frazier v. Moore, 651 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn.App.1983); and Kynch v. Tenoke Associates (Tenn. App. filed April 5, 1983, at Jackson). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Frazier v. Moore
green
1 sentence1984Ellithorpe v. Ford Motor Company, 503 S.W.2d 516, 522 (Tenn.1973) (emphasis supplied). *499 Defendant relies heavily upon three Tennessee cases in which assumption of the risk was found to exist —Merritt v. Carr, 621 S.W.2d 740 (Tenn.App.1980); Frazier v. Moore, 651 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn.App.1983); and Kynch v. Tenoke Associates (Tenn. App. filed April 5, 1983, at Jackson). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Fey v. Nashville Gas & Heating Co.
green
2 sentences1970In Fey v. Nashville Gas & Heating Co., 16 Tenn. App. 234, 237 , 64 S.W.2d 61, 63 , this Court said: “The principles applicable to negligence with respect to master and servant is the same as in this case, except that ordinarily the servant assumed the risk incident to such work, whereas in this case the doctrine of the assumption of the risk does not apply, as the plaintiff had as much right to be in the street as defendant. ’ ’ Under T.C.A. 44-1408 defendant’s unaccompanied dog had no right to be in the street. 1970In Fey v. Nashville Gas & Heating Co., 16 Tenn. App. 234, 237 , 64 S.W.2d 61, 63 , this Court said: “The principles applicable to negligence with respect to master and servant is the same as in this case, except that ordinarily the servant assumed the risk incident to such work, whereas in this case the doctrine of the assumption of the risk does not apply, as the plaintiff had as much right to be in the street as defendant. ’ ’ Under T.C.A. 44-1408 defendant’s unaccompanied dog had no right to be in the street. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.