Confronting a Known Risk: Imputing to plaintiff an agreement to accept full

responsibility for defendant's fault.

Case: Crews v. Hollenbach

Parties: Plaintiff (petitioners) - Crews (employee of gas company)

Defendant (respondents) - Hollenbach (employee working on excavating
land)

Procedural History: Trial judge gave summary judgment for defendants because
Crews had assumed the risk, and the intermediate court affirmed. Now before
Maryland's supreme court.

Facts: Hollenbach working on excavating land and struck a gas line owned by gas
company. Defendants did not notify anyone of this. A resident of the area smelled
the gas, and notified the fire dept. Crews, an employee of the gas company, went
to close the leak caused by def's striking the gas line. While doing this,
plaintiff, an employee of the gas company, the gas ignited and an explosion
occurred, severely injuring the plaintiff The cause of the spark was unknown, but
no allegations were made that it was caused by the respondents. Crews sued
Hollenbach and his employer for striking the gas line and causing the problem.
Trial judge gave summary judgment for defendants because Crews had assumed the
risk, and the intermediate court affirmed. Now before Maryland's supreme court.

Issue: Whether an employee of a gas company, working to close off a gas leak
which may cause great harm, and acting to safeguard others, assumed the risks
associated with this work, when the gas leak was caused by a negligent party.

Holding: Affirmed. Plaintiff assumed the risk.

Reasoning: Court defines the assumption of risk as "an intentional and voluntary
exposure to a known danger and, therefore, consent on the part of the plaintiff to
relieve the defendant of an obligation of conduct toward him and to take his
chances from harm from a particular risk." Court concluded that Crews, an
employee of the gas company for 20 years, was very well aware of the dangers
associated with this type of work, and that his actions striking a pip with a
backhoe should have been apparent that it may cause a spark and ignite the gas.
So, Crews knew the dangers but still acted. Crews argues that he was compelled to
act, because otherwise there may have been serious harm to the people and property
in the surrounding area, and not acting would not have been a reasonable choice.
However, court says he was not forced to act, and also says he assumed the risk
when he started working for the gas company.

RULE: "an intentional and voluntary exposure to a known danger and, therefore,
consent on the part of the plaintiff to relieve the defendant of an obligation of
conduct toward him and to take his chances from harm from a particular risk."

Notes
Secondary Implied assumption of the risk where plaintiff has acted reasonably.