Baumler v. Narragansett Brewing Co.
This text of 51 A. 203 (Baumler v. Narragansett Brewing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
We fail to see any material difference in principle, between the allegations in the amended declaration and those which were contained in the original declaration.
He alleges that “he felt and knew as he worked that it was exceedingly difficult to move his body along the different projecting blocks.” Peeling and knowing the difficulty in which he was thus placed, however, he continued in his work until he finally became unable to extricate himself without injury.
In view of these facts, we fail to see that it can he reasonably said that he did not fully and intelligently assume the risk incident to the work.
As to the allegation that the plaintiff was unable to realize the danger because “his attention was taken up with his difficult work,” it is enough to say that the work of scrubbing a floor can hardly be considered so absorbing as to prevent the person engaged therein from taking notice of his surroundings, and from properly looking out for his own safety. In short, it cannot be claimed that there was any emergency connected with the doing of said work. And hence the case clearly does not come within the exception upon which plaintiffs counsel relies.
The demurrer is sustained, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division, with direction to enter judgment for the defendant for its costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
51 A. 203, 23 R.I. 611, 1902 R.I. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baumler-v-narragansett-brewing-co-ri-1902.