Marshall v. Ranne

Supreme Court of Texas · Torts

Tortsassumption of riskvoluntary exposure to riskanimal attacksassumption of riskvoluntary exposureknown dangerspecific danger

Facts

Plaintiff and defendant owned neighboring farms, and defendant's boar had been on plaintiff's land for several weeks. Plaintiff testified that the boar had charged him ten to twelve times, trapped him in the outhouse several times, and attacked his wife four or five times before the injury. On the day of the injury, plaintiff saw the boar near the barn, later left his house to walk toward his pickup without any weapon or other protection, and was bitten when the boar charged him from behind. Although plaintiff knew the boar was dangerous, he had not previously complained effectively to defendant and had not taken defensive measures despite having guns and being an expert marksman.

Issue

Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that plaintiff voluntarily exposed himself to the risk of attack by defendant's vicious hog. More specifically, the question was whether plaintiff's knowledge of the danger and his conduct permitted the jury to find a complete defense of voluntary exposure.

Rule

A plaintiff voluntarily exposes himself to a risk when he has knowledge of the specific danger, not merely a general awareness, and nevertheless consciously chooses to encounter it. The evidence need not show that the plaintiff knew injury was imminent, and the absence of a perfect alternative does not conclusively defeat the defense if the plaintiff had other reasonable courses of action or protective measures available.

🔒

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.

In rural Oklahoma near Tulsa, Nora Velez knew that her neighbor Caleb Morrow’s escaped ram had charged her three times in the past week and had once pinned her against a shed door. One afternoon she saw the ram near her driveway, went inside for fifteen minutes, then walked unarmed to her mailbox after glancing around and not seeing it; the ram ran from behind a trailer and injured her.

If Caleb argues voluntary exposure to a known danger as a complete defense, which is the strongest basis for upholding that defense?

Explanation. The governing rule is that voluntary exposure requires knowledge of the specific danger and a conscious choice to encounter it. The plaintiff need not know injury is imminent, and failing to see the danger at the precise moment does not negate the defense if she knew it was nearby and dangerous. That reasoning supports the defense here. (Derived from Marshall v. Ranne (n.d.).)