OPINION
This is а suit for personal injuries. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant entered pursuant to a jury verdict. We affirm.
Assumption of risk was an issue in the case, and the jury wаs instructed thereon, without objection, in the form prescribed by New Mexico Uniform Jury Instructions, ■Civil (U.J.I. 13.10), as follows:
“11. The defendant contends the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury from the dangers which the plaintiff contends caused his injury. If you find each of the following propositions the plaintiff ■cannot recover:
“1. That a dangerous situation existed.
“2. That the plaintiff knew of such dangerous situation.
“3. That the plaintiff voluntarily exposed himself to the danger and was injured thereby.
“Plaintiff’s knowledge of the dangеr can be actual knowledge or plaintiff is presumеd to know of the danger if the risk is obvious.”
There was testimony by plaintiff to the ■effect that he recognized the danger involved in what he was’ doing and realized he was running a risk, but he wаnted to keep his job with defendant.
Defendant requested and the court gave the following instruction immediately fоllowing the giving of U.J.I. 13.10:
“12. To do an act rather than risk loss of emрloyment does not make the act involuntary so as to preclude the defense of assumption of risk.”
Plaintiff urgеs the effect of this instruction was to eliminate the requirеment of voluntary exposure to danger, which is an essential element of assumption of risk.
Plaintiff also urges: (1) His emрloyer, defendant, was aware of the defect in thе equipment which created the danger; (2) Defendant was present and directing the work; and (3) He, plaintiff, was suddenly subjected to an unforeseen and extraordinary risk. He, thеrefore, apparently contends the doctrinе of assumption of risk was not applicable.
We shall first consider plaintiff’s contention that the doctrine of assumption of risk was not applicable to the fаcts in this case for the three reasons above stated. He must fail in this position because the evidencе as to some of his stated reasons is at least in dispute, and because there was no objection made to instructing the jury on assumption of risk in the form of U.J.I. 13.10. In order to preserve error in the giving of an instruction, objection must bе made thereto, whether in U.J.I. or not. Rule 51 (i), Rules of Civil Procеdure [§ 21-1-1(51) (i), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1969)]. See also, Tapia v. Panhandle Steеl Erectors Company,
As to the above quoted Instruction No. 12, to which plaintiff did object, we are of the oрinion that the testimony of plaintiff, to which referencе is above made, warranted the giving of an instruction on economic coercion. We are also оf the opinion that the instruction given correctly states the law. Demarest v. T .C. Bateson Construction Company,
The judgment should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.