Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that implied secondary assumption of risk should no longer operate as an absolute defense separate from contributory negligence. Instead, a plaintiff's assumption of risk is treated as a form of contributory negligence and must be apportioned under Minnesota's comparative negligence statute. The court applied the new rule prospectively, including to this case, and reversed and remanded for a new trial limited to the driver's negligence and the passenger's contributory negligence.

Holdings

1. Implied secondary assumption of risk is not an independent absolute defense; it must be recast as an aspect of contributory negligence, requiring proof that the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably assumed the risk.
2. Like any other form of contributory negligence, secondary assumption of risk must be submitted and apportioned under Minnesota's comparative negligence statute.
3. The judgment for defendants could not stand because the jury's finding that Mary was not contributorily negligent was meaningless after assumption of risk was redefined as a phase of contributory negligence, and a new trial was required.

Questions Presented

1. Whether implied secondary assumption of risk should remain an absolute defense separate from contributory negligence.
2. Whether assumption of risk should instead be treated as an aspect of contributory negligence and apportioned under Minnesota's comparative negligence statute.
3. Whether the judgment for defendants could stand when the jury separately found that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent but had assumed the risk.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded