Thomas v. Holliday by and Through Holliday

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the evidence did not warrant a jury instruction on assumption of risk in a negligence action arising from injuries sustained while the plaintiff attempted to stop a departing vehicle. The court distinguished assumption of risk from contributory negligence and affirmed the trial court's order granting a new trial because the erroneous instruction presented assumption of risk as a complete defense.

Holdings

1. The evidence did not warrant an instruction on assumption of risk because Thomas did not expressly agree to release Holliday from liability, lack a legally relevant pre-existing or status-based relationship with Holliday, or consent to the particular harm he suffered.
2. Conduct that amounts to lack of due care or heedlessness, without consent to the harm, is contributory negligence rather than assumption of risk.
3. The trial court's order granting Thomas a new trial was legally tenable and therefore was affirmed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred in granting Thomas a new trial on the ground that the assumption-of-risk instruction was improperly given.
2. Whether the evidence supported an assumption-of-risk jury instruction in a negligence action involving a face-to-face encounter between strangers.
3. Whether Thomas's conduct constituted assumption of risk or instead presented an issue of contributory negligence.

Disposition

affirmed