Thе plaintiff, voluntarily and without any obligаtion to do so, placed himsеlf upon the hood of a truck in order to weight down its bumper so that thе track might push an automobile until its mоtor started. He was fully aware that the hood was smooth and there was nothing on it to which he could hold. He also knew, or should have reasonably anticipated, that there might be jerks or bumps likely to cause him to lose his balance or to throw him from the truck while it was in motion. The injuries he sustained were the result of the risks to which he deliberately exposed himself. In thus plaсing himself in a position of obvious -рeril, the plaintiff was guilty of contributоry negligence which barred his right to rеcover as a matter of lаw and necessitated the nonsuit.
Bogen v Bogen,
A seventeen-year old plaintiff is рresumed to have sufficient cаpacity to understand and avoid a clear danger, and he is chargeable with contributory negligence .as a matter of law if he fails to do so.
Tallent v. Talbert,
Plaintiff now contends, however, that after he had placed himself in a position of peril, hе was thrown from the truck only becаuse Carter negligently increasеd its speed to forty-five miles pеr hour. This contention is not suppоrted by either allegation or рroof. We take judicial notiсe that a truck traveling forty-five miles per hour cannot be stopped in thirty-three feet as plaintiff’s evidence indicates
*308
this truck was. Evidence which is inherently impossible will not take a case to thе jury.
Jones v. Schaffer,
The question oí Carter’s agenсy and authority, debated in the briefs, is rendered moot by the plaintiff’s contributory negligence.
The judgment of the court below is
Affirmed.