Drenzek v. Inmont Corp.

California Court of Appeal Apr 29, 1976 No. Civ. No. 13929Published

Before: Kaufman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court's jury instruction on assumption of the risk was prejudicially erroneous because it failed to specifically define the particular risk the plaintiff allegedly assumed, thereby allowing the jury to speculate.

Issues

Whether the trial court's jury instruction regarding assumption of the risk was incomplete and misleading for failing to specify the particular risk involved.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Plaintiff argues that the trial court misled the jury by failing to describe in its instructions the specific risk, the assumption of which by plaintiff would bar his recovery. We agree.”

“By defining the risk of harm as that “from the conduct of a person” which is not a violation of safety order or the Labor Code, the subject instruction allowed the jury to speculate as to which among several possible risks of harm plaintiff might have assumed.”

Opinion

KAUFMAN, J. Plaintiff sued defendant for damages for injuries he allegedly sustained while working at defendant’s factory. Following a [880]trial by jury, a verdict was returned against plaintiff and the trial court entered judgment accordingly. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment.

Facts

On March 30, 1972, plaintiff Christopher Drenzek (hereinafter “plaintiff”) slipped and fell during the course of his work at a paint factory owned and operated by defendant Inmont Corporation (hereinafter “defendant”). On that date, plaintiff, age 24, was employed as a security guard by Wells Fargo Security Guard Services and assigned to work the night shift at defendant’s factory. Plaintiff had been so employed for approximately three years prior to his injury.

In addition to periodic inspections of defendant’s premises, plaintiff’s duties included the venting of certain paint-mixing machines known as “ball mills.” The venting procedure required plaintiff to loosen and remove a plug located on each mill in order to release gases generated by the grinding action within the mill.

Plaintiff’s injuries occurred at approximately 4 a.m. as plaintiff was in the process of venting one such mill. Plaintiff testified that as he approached the mill he noticed splotches of paint and grease on the walkway next to the mill. As plaintiff removed the vent plug, he was startled by an unusually large gust of noxious gases from the mill. Acting on reflex, plaintiff stepped back quickly, slipping and falling in the paint and grease and being knocked unconscious. Plaintiff regained consciousness in about an hour and crawled back to the guard headquarters to summon help.

Plaintiff’s physician testified that plaintiff had suffered severe back injuries requiring surgery, but that surgery had been unsuccessful. As a result, plaintiff suffered continued pain and total work disability.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that defendant’s negligent maintenance of the work space next to the ball mill proximately caused his injuries. The prayer of the complaint asked for $100,000 in general damages, which was later amended to $200,000, and special damages according to proof.1 Defendant’s answer raised the affirmative defenses of contribu[881]

Drenzek v. Inmont Corp.

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief