Bouchard v. Sicard.
| Decision Date | 04 January 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 924.,924. |
| Citation | 35 A.2d 439 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | BOUCHARD v. SICARD. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Orleans County Court; Walter H. Cleary, Presiding Judge.
Action by Albert Bouchard against Eugene Sicard for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Judgment was for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions.
Affirmed.
Before MOULTON, C. J., and SHERBURNE, BUTTLES, STURTEVANT, and JEFFORDS, JJ.
Lee E. Emerson, of Barton, for plaintiff.
Hubert S. Pierce, of Newport, for defendant.
In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by him in failing from a load of straw, and he contends that the defendant's negligence was the sole cause of that accident. The defendant had a verdict and judgment below and the case is here on the plaintiff's exceptions.
In his declaration, among other things, the plaintiff alleges the following facts: On or about November 7, 1942, the defendant sold a load of straw to the plaintiff. The defendant was to use his truck to transport the straw from his place to the plaintiff's premises and the latter was to assist in this work. The plaintiff pitched the straw on the truck and the defendant loaded it. The straw was not bound with chains or ropes and there was no tail board on the truck. The load made it impossible for the defendant to see back of the cab. At the direction of the defendant, the plaintiff took a position on the load near the cab and pushed his fork as far as it would go into the straw and kept hold of it for the purpose of holding the load in place. This was done upon the promise of the defendant to drive with care. On that portion of the route which is the main highway leading from Newport Center to North Troy, the plaintiff drove in a careless and negligent manner, in that he drove at a speed of, to-wit, 50 miles per hour and disregarded the plaintiff's requests to slow down. Because of the slippery quality of the straw and the above mentioned negligent acts of the defendant, the load with the plaintiff on it slipped from the truck thereby injuring him. The defendant filed no pleadings and so, under our rule, the case went to trial on the general issue. The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove the allegations in his writ. The defendant introduced evidence tending to show that he drove the truck slowly and not in excess of 25 miles per hour on this occasion and that he did not direct the plaintiff to ride on the top of the load but requested him to ride in the cab and that while there was some talk about binding the load with chains it was decided not to do so. The fact that the plaintiff rode on the load was a matter of his own choosing and was against the advice of the defendant. The plaintiff knew that straw is slippery.
In its charge to the jury the court instructed them as to negligence, contributory negligence and assumption of risk by the plaintiff. The plaintiff excepted to the charge as to assumption of risk upon the ground that it is an affirmative defense and as it had not been pleaded by the defendant it was not an issue at the trial. That is, the plaintiff contends that the defendant had the burden of showing that the plaintiff assumed the risk and, as it had not been pleaded as a defense, that question was not in the case.
There is a distinction between the doctrine of contributory negligence and the doctrine of assumed risk, since there may be the voluntary assumption of the risk of a known danger such as will bar one from recovery for injury to person or property, even though in the exercise of due care. Waterlund v. Billings et al., 112 Vt. 256, 262, 23 A.2d 540; Gover v. Central Vermont Ry. Co., 96 Vt. 208, 213, 118 A. 874, and cases cited. The doctrine of assumed risk may apply when no relation by contract exists within the limits of the maxim “volenti non fit injuria”. That is, if one knowing and comprehending the danger voluntarily exposes himself to it,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bulatao v. Kauai Motors, Limited
...recent case of Pritchard v. Liggett v. Myers Tobacco Co., 350 F.2d 479 (3d Cir., July 26, 1965). Defendant also cites Bouchard v. Sicard, 113 Vt. 429, 35 A.2d 439, 441. In that case, as in Seaboldt, there were instructions on both defenses, and the judgment was affirmed. In Merchant v. Unit......
-
Zielinski v. Cornwell
...A. 528; Blaisdell v. Blake, 111 Vt. 123, 126, 11 A.2d 215; Landing v. Town of Fairlee, 112 Vt. 127, 130, 22 A.2d 179; Bouchard v. Sicard, 113 Vt. 429, 432, 35 A.2d 439; Painter v. Nichols, 118 Vt. 307, 310, 108 A.2d 384. However reversible error cannot be predicated on this jury instruction......
-
Lewis v. Vermont Gas Corp.
...Roberts v. Gray, 119 Vt. at page 157, 122 A.2d 855, supra; Painter v. Nichols, 118 Vt. 306, 310, 108 A.2d 384; Bouchard v. Sicard, 113 Vt. 429, 431, 35 A.2d 439. Reverting to the evidence, Mr. Lewis testified that when in the cellar about 4:30 p. m. that the jet pilot light was out and he h......
-
Agosta v. Granite City Real Estate Co., 1783
...P Co., 115 Vt. 23, 27, 49 A.2d 415; to state it in another way, that he knowingly and willingly encountered the danger. Bouchard v. Sicard, 113 Vt. 429, 432, 35 A.2d 439. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff necessarily had to return home and had no alternative but to proceed. So it can......