114 A. 277 | N.H. | 1921
The defendants contend that even if they were in fault the plaintiff cannot recover because (1) he assumed the risk of his injury and (2) was guilty of contributory negligence. The test to determine whether he assumed the risk is to inquire whether he either knew or ought to have known that his hand was liable to come in contact with the cylinder when he was reaching in under the machine for flax and fully appreciated the risk incident thereto. Cassidy v. Company,
The defendants also contend that the court erred when it refused to instruct the jury that "if the plaintiff put his hand in a place where he did not know it was safe to put it, because he did not think or because he did not care whether it was dangerous or not, then he cannot recover." If it is true that one who puts his hand in a place when he does not know it is safe because he does not care is guilty of negligence as a matter of law, a question as to which no opinion is intended to be expressed, it does not help the defendants, for their request to give that instruction was coupled with a request to instruct the jury that one who puts his hand where he does not know it is safe, because he does not think, is guilty of negligence; for while the fact a person does not think is relevant to, it is not conclusive of the issue of his lack of care. Bennett v. Warren,
Exceptions overruled.
All concurred. *89