DELIVERY DRIVER’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BARRED BY ASSUMPTION OF RISK
August 09th, 2016/By Admin/In Newsletter
Delivery Driver’s Personal Injury Action Barred By Assumption Of Risk
In Stephen Moore v. William Jessup University, plaintiff Stephen Moore (“Moore”), a United Parcel Service (“UPS”) delivery driver, was injured when he lifted a box with a shipping label prepared by defendant William Jessup University (“University”) that inaccurately stated the weight of the box. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the University on Moore’s sole cause of action for negligence. In rendering its decision, the court found that the University owed Moore no legal duty of care and that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk barred Moore’s action. Moore appealed.
In his appeal, Moore contended the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the doctrine of primary assumption of risk does not apply where the University increased the risk of injury to Moore by understating the weight of the box and failing to use highlighted tape to mark it. Moore also claimed that the University owed him a duty of care under the test articulated in the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Rowland v. Christian.
The Third Appellate District found that although a defendant (such as the University) has no duty to protect a plaintiff (such as Moore) from risks inherent in an activity, it does have a duty not to increase the risks. It determined however that the evidence in this case established that the risk of injury from lifting heavy boxes labeled with inaccurate weight information was inherent in Moore’s job; that UPS does not require customers to weigh packages before labeling them; that customers sometimes inaccurately identify the weight of the packages; and that UPS instructs its delivery drivers on proper lifting techniques and trains them to test the weight of a package before lifting it.
When rendering its decision, the appellate court noted that, as a matter of public policy, it is unfair to impose a duty on a person to prevent an injury arising from the very condition or hazard the person retained another to confront; and that the primary assumption of risk doctrine does not require the assumption of every possible risk presented. Accordingly, by mislabeling the package, the University did not increase the risks beyond those that were inherent in Moore’s job.
Because the Court of Appeal found that the primary assumption of risk doctrine barred Moore’s negligence action, it did not address whether the University owed Moore a duty of care under the factors set forth in Rowland v. Christian.
[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Do not act or rely upon any of the resources and information contained herein without seeking appropriate professional assistance.]
