After plaintiff mounted and defendant started to walk away ahead of the horse, plaintiff testified he said "Don't, Joe, come on back", but Joe paid no attention to him and went on out to the end of the rope and then jerked on it. He also testified: "* * * when you do something like that and when you get out and jerk, that horse is going to do something, and when he jerked Danny came up. * * * if he would have stayed by that horse, I'll bet you anything that horse would have gone right straight out." [4] It is true the servant assumes the risks that naturally pertain to his work, but he is under no obligation to assume any risks caused by the master's failure of duty. Anderson v. Sheuerman, 232 Iowa 705, 708, 6 N.W.2d 125. Certain risks and dangers naturally inhere in the work plaintiff was doing, as race horses are known to be more or less spirited, but plaintiff must not be held to have also assumed all risks which may result from defendant's negligence or breach of duty. Laws v. Richards, 210 Iowa 608, 611, 231 N.W. 321, and cases cited therein. [5, 6] Was this risk one which was ordinarily and normally incident to that kind of work?
These were risks ordinarily and normally incident to that kind of work. Appellant must be held to have assumed all such risks not resulting from appellee's negligence. Laws v. Richards, 210 Iowa 608, 611, 231 N.W. 321, and cases cited; Swaim v. Chicago, R.I. P.R. Co., supra; 35 Am. Jur. 722, section 299; 39 C.J. 705, section 908. The judgment is — Affirmed.