7 Virginia opinions name it 4 courts 1990–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thurmond v. Prince William Professional Baseball Club, Inc.green1 sentence2026See Thurmond, 265 Va. at 66-67 ; see also Artrip v. E.E. | 1 | 1 |
Lawson Ex Rel. Lawson v. Salt Lake Trappers, Inc.green1 sentence2003Dist., 424 N.E.2d 531, 533-34 (N.Y. 1981); Lawson v. Salt Lake Trappers, Inc., 901 P.2d 1013, 1015 (Utah 1995). 5 In Nelson v. Great Eastern Resort Management, Inc., 265 Va. 98, 105 , 574 S.E.2d 277, 281 (2003) (this day decided), we again emphasized the subjective focus of the doctrine of assumption of the risk, and we rejected the doctrine of “inherent risk” and its apparent reliance on an objective standard in determining a plaintiff’s knowledge and acceptance of a particular risk. | 1 | 1 |
Akins v. Glens Falls City School Districtgreen1 sentence2003Dist., 424 N.E.2d 531, 533-34 (N.Y. 1981); Lawson v. Salt Lake Trappers, Inc., 901 P.2d 1013, 1015 (Utah 1995). 5 In Nelson v. Great Eastern Resort Management, Inc., 265 Va. 98, 105 , 574 S.E.2d 277, 281 (2003) (this day decided), we again emphasized the subjective focus of the doctrine of assumption of the risk, and we rejected the doctrine of “inherent risk” and its apparent reliance on an objective standard in determining a plaintiff’s knowledge and acceptance of a particular risk. | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. Great Eastern Resort Management, Inc.green2 sentences2003Dist., 424 N.E.2d 531, 533-34 (N.Y. 1981); Lawson v. Salt Lake Trappers, Inc., 901 P.2d 1013, 1015 (Utah 1995). 5 In Nelson v. Great Eastern Resort Management, Inc., 265 Va. 98, 105 , 574 S.E.2d 277, 281 (2003) (this day decided), we again emphasized the subjective focus of the doctrine of assumption of the risk, and we rejected the doctrine of “inherent risk” and its apparent reliance on an objective standard in determining a plaintiff’s knowledge and acceptance of a particular risk. 2003Dist., 424 N.E.2d 531, 533-34 (N.Y. 1981); Lawson v. Salt Lake Trappers, Inc., 901 P.2d 1013, 1015 (Utah 1995). 5 In Nelson v. Great Eastern Resort Management, Inc., 265 Va. 98, 105 , 574 S.E.2d 277, 281 (2003) (this day decided), we again emphasized the subjective focus of the doctrine of assumption of the risk, and we rejected the doctrine of “inherent risk” and its apparent reliance on an objective standard in determining a plaintiff’s knowledge and acceptance of a particular risk. | 1 | 1 |
Tomlin v. Worleygreen2 sentences1997See Tomlin v. Worley, 206 Va. 344, 351 , 143 S.E.2d 866, 872 (1965). 1997See Tomlin v. Worley, 206 Va. 344, 351 , 143 S.E.2d 866, 872 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
White Consolidated Industry, Inc. v. Swineygreen2 sentences1995See White Consolidated Industry v. Swiney, 237 Va. 23, 29-30 , 376 S.E.2d 283, 286 (1989). 1995See White Consolidated Industry v. Swiney, 237 Va. 23, 29-30 , 376 S.E.2d 283, 286 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Millsapsgreen1 sentence1991The application of this doctrine has been attributed to a group of people who are employed by the government and are "held, as a matter of law, to assume the risks of injury occasioned by ordinary negligence inherently involved in the normal pursuit of their duties.” Commonwealth v. Millsaps, 232 Va. 502, 509-510 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
Amusement Slides Corp. v. Lehmanngreen2 sentences1990In a discussion of an application of an assumption of the risk defense, the court in Amusement Slides v. Lehmann, 217 Va. 815, 818-19 , 232 S.E.2d 803, 805 (1977), made it clear that the court can find assumption of the risk applies as a matter of law in situations where reasonable people cannot differ whether plaintiff fully appreciates the nature and extent of the risk involved. 1990In a discussion of an application of an assumption of the risk defense, the court in Amusement Slides v. Lehmann, 217 Va. 815, 818-19 , 232 S.E.2d 803, 805 (1977), made it clear that the court can find assumption of the risk applies as a matter of law in situations where reasonable people cannot differ whether plaintiff fully appreciates the nature and extent of the risk involved. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carter Coal Co. v. Bates
neutral
2 sentences2004Co. v. Bell, 149 Va. 720 , 141 S.E. 838 (1928), Clinchfield Coal Corp. v. Hawkins, 130 Va. 698 , 108 S.E. 704 (1921), and Carter Coal Co. v. Bates, 127 Va. 586 , 105 S.E. 76 (1920), addressed whether a defendant could plead the assumption of the risk defense when the defendant’s violation of a statutory requirement was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. 2 The theory of the defendants advanced in those *609 cases was that the plaintiffs had known that the defendants had not complied with the statutory requirement and, therefore, the plaintiffs had assumed the risk of harm resulting fr 2004Co. v. Bell, 149 Va. 720 , 141 S.E. 838 (1928), Clinchfield Coal Corp. v. Hawkins, 130 Va. 698 , 108 S.E. 704 (1921), and Carter Coal Co. v. Bates, 127 Va. 586 , 105 S.E. 76 (1920), addressed whether a defendant could plead the assumption of the risk defense when the defendant’s violation of a statutory requirement was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. 2 The theory of the defendants advanced in those *609 cases was that the plaintiffs had known that the defendants had not complied with the statutory requirement and, therefore, the plaintiffs had assumed the risk of harm resulting fr | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Clinchfield Coal Corp. v. Hawkins
neutral
2 sentences2004Co. v. Bell, 149 Va. 720 , 141 S.E. 838 (1928), Clinchfield Coal Corp. v. Hawkins, 130 Va. 698 , 108 S.E. 704 (1921), and Carter Coal Co. v. Bates, 127 Va. 586 , 105 S.E. 76 (1920), addressed whether a defendant could plead the assumption of the risk defense when the defendant’s violation of a statutory requirement was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. 2 The theory of the defendants advanced in those *609 cases was that the plaintiffs had known that the defendants had not complied with the statutory requirement and, therefore, the plaintiffs had assumed the risk of harm resulting fr 2004Co. v. Bell, 149 Va. 720 , 141 S.E. 838 (1928), Clinchfield Coal Corp. v. Hawkins, 130 Va. 698 , 108 S.E. 704 (1921), and Carter Coal Co. v. Bates, 127 Va. 586 , 105 S.E. 76 (1920), addressed whether a defendant could plead the assumption of the risk defense when the defendant’s violation of a statutory requirement was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. 2 The theory of the defendants advanced in those *609 cases was that the plaintiffs had known that the defendants had not complied with the statutory requirement and, therefore, the plaintiffs had assumed the risk of harm resulting fr | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Bell
neutral
2 sentences2004Co. v. Bell, 149 Va. 720 , 141 S.E. 838 (1928), Clinchfield Coal Corp. v. Hawkins, 130 Va. 698 , 108 S.E. 704 (1921), and Carter Coal Co. v. Bates, 127 Va. 586 , 105 S.E. 76 (1920), addressed whether a defendant could plead the assumption of the risk defense when the defendant’s violation of a statutory requirement was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. 2 The theory of the defendants advanced in those *609 cases was that the plaintiffs had known that the defendants had not complied with the statutory requirement and, therefore, the plaintiffs had assumed the risk of harm resulting fr 2004Co. v. Bell, 149 Va. 720 , 141 S.E. 838 (1928), Clinchfield Coal Corp. v. Hawkins, 130 Va. 698 , 108 S.E. 704 (1921), and Carter Coal Co. v. Bates, 127 Va. 586 , 105 S.E. 76 (1920), addressed whether a defendant could plead the assumption of the risk defense when the defendant’s violation of a statutory requirement was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. 2 The theory of the defendants advanced in those *609 cases was that the plaintiffs had known that the defendants had not complied with the statutory requirement and, therefore, the plaintiffs had assumed the risk of harm resulting fr | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.