Hendricks v. Broderick

Supreme Court of Iowa · Torts

TortsNegligenceContributory NegligenceAssumption of RiskRecklessnessJury Instructionscontributory negligenceassumption of risk

Facts

Hendricks and Broderick independently went turkey hunting in Shimek Forest, each with a companion, in dark early-morning conditions and dense underbrush. Broderick testified that after yelping to attract a tom turkey, he saw movement in the brush, could not tell what it was, judged it to be a turkey, and shot at about 60 yards, hitting Hendricks. Hendricks sued for negligence, alleging Broderick failed to identify his target before firing, and also pleaded gross negligence and recklessness. The trial court submitted contributory negligence under an instruction stating Hendricks was negligent if he placed himself in a position of assuming whatever risk existed by voluntarily going turkey hunting in Shimek Forest.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that plaintiff could be contributorily negligent merely because he voluntarily went turkey hunting and thereby assumed whatever risks existed in the forest. Also, whether the trial court properly refused to direct a verdict for plaintiff on liability and properly refused to submit gross negligence, recklessness, and exemplary damages claims.

Rule

In an ordinary negligence action, a plaintiff does not assume the risk of another person's negligence as a separate defense. If supported by substantial evidence, the proper defense is contributory negligence, submitted in terms of whether the plaintiff acted as an ordinarily prudent person under the circumstances; here, the relevant inquiry was whether Hendricks knew or in the exercise of due care should have known Broderick was working a turkey in that place and nonetheless entered it. A person may assume others will exercise due care until he knows or in ordinary care should know otherwise.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Before sunrise in the Black Hills of South Dakota, Nolan Pierce joins a public-land elk hunt. Another hunter, Caleb Moran, hears bugling, sees brush move in dim light, fires without identifying his target, and hits Nolan. At trial, the judge instructs the jury that Nolan was contributorily negligent if he 'voluntarily put himself in a position of assuming whatever risks existed by choosing to hunt there that morning.'

If Nolan appeals, how should the appellate court rule on that instruction in an ordinary negligence action?

Explanation. In an ordinary negligence case, assumption of the risk of another person's negligence is not a separate defense. Plaintiff fault, if supported by the evidence, must be framed as contributory negligence under the ordinary-prudent-person standard. An instruction saying the plaintiff assumed whatever risks existed merely by voluntarily hunting is erroneous because a person does not thereby assume another hunter's negligence. (Derived from Hendricks v. Broderick (n.d.).)