assumed risk doctrine in Missouri

1968Negligence § 174(2), p. 293].” Fletcher v. Kemp, supra, 327 S.W.2d 1 . c. 183 [7].

1959In order to invoke the doctrine of assumed risk, or “incurred risk” as it is sometimes called, Stein v. Battenfeld Oil & Grease Co., 327 Mo. 804 , 39 S.W.2d 345 , it is necessary that the exposure to risk shall have been voluntary.

1959In order to invoke the doctrine of assumed risk, or “incurred risk” as it is sometimes called, Stein v. Battenfeld Oil & Grease Co., 327 Mo. 804 , 39 S.W.2d 345 , it is necessary that the exposure to risk shall have been voluntary.

1929According to the great weight of authority an employee does not assume the risk of *989 injury caused by the negligence of a railroad company or its employees unless he knows of the danger, or unless the danger is so open and obvious that he is presumed to know it. [Reed v. Director General, 258 U. S. 92 ; Railroad v. Swearingen, 196 U. S. 51 ; Railroad v. McDade, 191 U. S. 64 ; Railroad v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492 ; Railroad v. Hall, 232 U. S. 94 ; Railroad v. Ward, 252 U. S. 18 ; and Railroad v. DeAtley, 241 U. S. 310 .] We think there was no room for application of the doctrine of assumed risk

1929According to the great weight of authority an employee does not assume the risk of *989 injury caused by the negligence of a railroad company or its employees unless he knows of the danger, or unless the danger is so open and obvious that he is presumed to know it. [Reed v. Director General, 258 U. S. 92 ; Railroad v. Swearingen, 196 U. S. 51 ; Railroad v. McDade, 191 U. S. 64 ; Railroad v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492 ; Railroad v. Hall, 232 U. S. 94 ; Railroad v. Ward, 252 U. S. 18 ; and Railroad v. DeAtley, 241 U. S. 310 .] We think there was no room for application of the doctrine of assumed risk

1929According to the great weight of authority an employee does not assume the risk of *989 injury caused by the negligence of a railroad company or its employees unless he knows of the danger, or unless the danger is so open and obvious that he is presumed to know it. [Reed v. Director General, 258 U. S. 92 ; Railroad v. Swearingen, 196 U. S. 51 ; Railroad v. McDade, 191 U. S. 64 ; Railroad v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492 ; Railroad v. Hall, 232 U. S. 94 ; Railroad v. Ward, 252 U. S. 18 ; and Railroad v. DeAtley, 241 U. S. 310 .] We think there was no room for application of the doctrine of assumed risk

1929According to the great weight of authority an employee does not assume the risk of *989 injury caused by the negligence of a railroad company or its employees unless he knows of the danger, or unless the danger is so open and obvious that he is presumed to know it. [Reed v. Director General, 258 U. S. 92 ; Railroad v. Swearingen, 196 U. S. 51 ; Railroad v. McDade, 191 U. S. 64 ; Railroad v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492 ; Railroad v. Hall, 232 U. S. 94 ; Railroad v. Ward, 252 U. S. 18 ; and Railroad v. DeAtley, 241 U. S. 310 .] We think there was no room for application of the doctrine of assumed risk

1929According to the great weight of authority an employee does not assume the risk of *989 injury caused by the negligence of a railroad company or its employees unless he knows of the danger, or unless the danger is so open and obvious that he is presumed to know it. [Reed v. Director General, 258 U. S. 92 ; Railroad v. Swearingen, 196 U. S. 51 ; Railroad v. McDade, 191 U. S. 64 ; Railroad v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492 ; Railroad v. Hall, 232 U. S. 94 ; Railroad v. Ward, 252 U. S. 18 ; and Railroad v. DeAtley, 241 U. S. 310 .] We think there was no room for application of the doctrine of assumed risk

1929According to the great weight of authority an employee does not assume the risk of *989 injury caused by the negligence of a railroad company or its employees unless he knows of the danger, or unless the danger is so open and obvious that he is presumed to know it. [Reed v. Director General, 258 U. S. 92 ; Railroad v. Swearingen, 196 U. S. 51 ; Railroad v. McDade, 191 U. S. 64 ; Railroad v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492 ; Railroad v. Hall, 232 U. S. 94 ; Railroad v. Ward, 252 U. S. 18 ; and Railroad v. DeAtley, 241 U. S. 310 .] We think there was no room for application of the doctrine of assumed risk

1929According to the great weight of authority an employee does not assume the risk of *989 injury caused by the negligence of a railroad company or its employees unless he knows of the danger, or unless the danger is so open and obvious that he is presumed to know it. [Reed v. Director General, 258 U. S. 92 ; Railroad v. Swearingen, 196 U. S. 51 ; Railroad v. McDade, 191 U. S. 64 ; Railroad v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492 ; Railroad v. Hall, 232 U. S. 94 ; Railroad v. Ward, 252 U. S. 18 ; and Railroad v. DeAtley, 241 U. S. 310 .] We think there was no room for application of the doctrine of assumed risk

1929According to the great weight of authority an employee does not assume the risk of *989 injury caused by the negligence of a railroad company or its employees unless he knows of the danger, or unless the danger is so open and obvious that he is presumed to know it. [Reed v. Director General, 258 U. S. 92 ; Railroad v. Swearingen, 196 U. S. 51 ; Railroad v. McDade, 191 U. S. 64 ; Railroad v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492 ; Railroad v. Hall, 232 U. S. 94 ; Railroad v. Ward, 252 U. S. 18 ; and Railroad v. DeAtley, 241 U. S. 310 .] We think there was no room for application of the doctrine of assumed risk

1929According to the great weight of authority an employee does not assume the risk of *989 injury caused by the negligence of a railroad company or its employees unless he knows of the danger, or unless the danger is so open and obvious that he is presumed to know it. [Reed v. Director General, 258 U. S. 92 ; Railroad v. Swearingen, 196 U. S. 51 ; Railroad v. McDade, 191 U. S. 64 ; Railroad v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492 ; Railroad v. Hall, 232 U. S. 94 ; Railroad v. Ward, 252 U. S. 18 ; and Railroad v. DeAtley, 241 U. S. 310 .] We think there was no room for application of the doctrine of assumed risk

1928This Missouri rule we also carefully stated in the Williams case, supra, 272 Mo. l. c. 622, thus: "In Fish v. Railway, 263 Mo. 106 , we properly held that under the Federal statutes there were two classes of cases: (1) a class of cases wherein the assumption of risk could not be invoked, and (2) a class of cases wherein the defendant could invoke the doctrine of assumed risk.

1909Plaintiff only assumed the risks that were incidental to the employment and did not assume those created by the negligence of his master. [Cole v. Transit Co., 183 Mo. l. c. 94; Settle v. Railway, 127 Mo. l. c. 344; Blanton v. Dold, 109 Mo. l. c. 76; Curtis v. McNair, 173 Mo. 270 .] But it is argued that plaintiff was guilty.in law of contributory negligence.

1908Co., 175 Ill. 472 ; Elgin, etc., Railroad v. Myers, 226 Ill. 258 , 361.] Those two Illinois cases hold that “one of the limitations upon the doctrine of assumed risk is, where the servant, by the order of the master or one standing in that relation, is directed to encounter a danger and he obeyed the order, he does not assume the risk unless the danger is so great that an ordinarily prudent person would not have assumed it,” In Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Laack, 143 Ill. 242, 256 , it was said: “As a general rule, the servant assumes the natural and ordinary risks of the business in which he eng

1908Co., 175 Ill. 472 ; Elgin, etc., Railroad v. Myers, 226 Ill. 258 , 361.] Those two Illinois cases hold that “one of the limitations upon the doctrine of assumed risk is, where the servant, by the order of the master or one standing in that relation, is directed to encounter a danger and he obeyed the order, he does not assume the risk unless the danger is so great that an ordinarily prudent person would not have assumed it,” In Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Laack, 143 Ill. 242, 256 , it was said: “As a general rule, the servant assumes the natural and ordinary risks of the business in which he eng

1905One line is represented by Porter v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 66 ; Fugler v. Bothe, 117 Mo. 475 ; s. c., 43 Mo. App. 44 , and Steinhauser v. Spraul, 127 Mo. 562 .

1905One line is represented by Porter v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 66 ; Fugler v. Bothe, 117 Mo. 475 ; s. c., 43 Mo. App. 44 , and Steinhauser v. Spraul, 127 Mo. 562 .

1905One line is represented by Porter v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 66 ; Fugler v. Bothe, 117 Mo. 475 ; s. c., 43 Mo. App. 44 , and Steinhauser v. Spraul, 127 Mo. 562 .