Louisiana Texas Lumber Co. v. Brown

2 Citing cases

  1. Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Rogers

    60 Okla. 249 (Okla. 1916)   Cited 17 times
    Explaining that contributory negligence doesn't apply to contractual relations

    "Assumed risks and contributory negligence are distinct doctrines of law." La. Texas Lbr. Co. v. Brown, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 482, 109 S.W. 950; Chicago E. R. Co. v. Ponn, 191 Fed. 682, 112 C. C. A. 228. The authorities all hold that assumption of risk and contributory negligence are separate and distinct defenses; that they are separate and distinct doctrines of law; therefore we take it that the court was in keeping with the law in instructing separately with reference to such defenses.

  2. Panhandle S. F. v. Haywood

    227 S.W. 347 (Tex. Civ. App. 1921)   Cited 20 times

    The seventeenth assignment, complains of the refusal of the court to give a charge informing the jury that the plaintiff in accepting employment from the defendants assumed in law such reasonable dangers to himself and family as were incident thereto, etc. It is said by some of the authorities that the doctrine of assumed risk, which was sought by these requested charges to be applied to the facts of this case, applies only to personal risks to the servant growing out of the relation of master and servant. St. Louis S. F. Ry. Co. v. Traweek, 84 Tex. 65, 19 S.W. 370, 374 (point not referred to in the syllabus); La. T. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 482, 109 S.W. 951, 952-954. However, there is good authority for the application of the doctrine, or one very similar to it, expressed in the maximum, "volenti non fit injuria," to situations other than those growing out of the relation of master and servant.