Ray v. Downes Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A farmhand was run over by a truck while helping the driver position equipment. The court held that while the farmhand knew the situation was generally dangerous, he did not legally assume the specific risk of the driver’s subsequent negligence in failing to stop on signal.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that voluntarily encountering a known danger does not, as a matter of law, constitute consent to a defendant’s subsequent, unexpected negligence. It distinguishes the assumption of general, inherent risks from the specific risk of another’s carelessness.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Donald Ray, an experienced farm laborer, volunteered to help Phillip Waldner, a semi-truck driver, position an auger under a moving trailer. They agreed that Waldner would drive the truck forward slowly while Ray pushed the auger into place, and Ray would use hand signals and shout for Waldner to stop. Ray positioned himself a few feet in front of the trailer’s rear wheels. When the auger was in place, Ray signaled and shouted, but Waldner did not stop, and the trailer’s wheels ran over Ray’s legs. The area was noisy due to running farm equipment. In a deposition, Ray admitted he knew he was in a position of danger and voluntarily placed himself there. The trial court granted summary judgment for Waldner and his employer, finding Ray had assumed the risk as a matter of law. Ray appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a plaintiff who voluntarily encounters a known dangerous situation, such as standing near a moving vehicle, assume the risk of a defendant’s subsequent negligence as a matter of law, thereby warranting summary judgment?
No. The court reversed the summary judgment. While the plaintiff knowingly placed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliqui
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a plaintiff who voluntarily encounters a known dangerous situation, such as standing near a moving vehicle, assume the risk of a defendant’s subsequent negligence as a matter of law, thereby warranting summary judgment?
Conclusion
This case serves as a key precedent distinguishing the defense of assumption Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitati
Legal Rule
To establish the affirmative defense of assumption of the risk, a defendant Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui offic
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on the first element of assumption of the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labori
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A plaintiff’s assumption of the inherent risks of a dangerous activity