|
|
|
|
Assumption of Risk Defense Upheld AgainstGas Line Repair Technician Injured in Gas Explosion
(Court of Appeals of Maryland, May 11, 2000) Plaintiff was injured in an explosion following a natural gas leak in Bowie, Maryland on March 23, 1996. Plaintiff was the foreman of a gas line repair team sent to the scene by his employer, Washington Gas Light Co. Plaintiff and his wife brought suit in negligence and strict liability against numerous parties who allegedly caused the gas leak. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment to defendants, ruling that the plaintiffs were barred from recovery by assumption of the risk. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, and the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the fireman’s rule does not apply to this case and declined to recognize and apply the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk. However, it held that the Circuit Court correctly ruled that plaintiffs’ suit is barred otherwise by the doctrine of assumption of the risk. Assumption of the risk requires a determination (1) that plaintiff had knowledge of the risk of danger, (2) appreciated the risk, and (3) voluntarily exposed himself to that risk. In deciding whether a plaintiff had knowledge and appreciation of a particular risk, the court is to apply an objective standard, and will not be swayed by a plaintiff’s subjective denial that he or she did not comprehend the extent of a clearly obvious danger. "The question of whether a plaintiff knew and understood the risk in a case is generally one for the trier of fact, but if a person of normal intelligence, in the same position as the plaintiff, would clearly have comprehend the danger, the questions is one for the court." The Court concluded that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk. There was no evidence of record that he was forced to address the gas leak in the manner that he did. There was no basis to find that his actions were involuntary for purposes of the assumption of the risk analysis. The danger that he encountered was "the very same danger that he accepted the risk of confronting when he became an employee of Washington Gas some 20 years earlier. . . . [T]he aspect of his job duties that involved fixing gas leaks, a clearly dangerous endeavor, . . . constitutes a voluntary assumption of ‘those risks which might reasonably be expected to exist . . . .’" |
|
Send E-mail to info(at)jocs-law.com with questions
or comments about this web site.
General contact information.
|
