Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Murphy

WELCH, Y. C. J.

Plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment for damages for personal injuries, and the defendants have appealed.

Only two questions are presented here: (1) “Did plaintiff assume the risk arising from the use of the motor car which he was operating at the time of the accident?” (2) “Did the trial court err In admitting in evidence the burnt motor car wheel?”

Defendants assert that plaintiff is barred from recovery because of the operation of the doctrine of assumption of risk.

The facts material to the first question presented are substantially as follows: On May 17, 1936, plaintiff…