## Facts

- A farm owner bought a self-unloading ensilage wagon manufactured by Grove Manufacturing Co. and sold by Carlyle & Martin, Inc.
- The wagon’s power takeoff operated an internal conveyor and two exposed rotating “beaters” with metal rods and spikes.
- The wagon’s drag chains broke; a repairman from Carlyle & Anderson, Inc. inspected it and said the wagon had to be unloaded before repairs could be made, then left.
- Grayson C. Reed, an experienced farmer familiar with the wagon, helped unload it manually while the tractor remained running so the beaters and conveyor continued operating.
- A co-worker unloaded from the ground using a pitchfork; Reed instead stood on a bank of ensilage sloping toward the moving beaters.
- The ensilage shifted, Reed slipped, and he fell into the rotating beaters, suffering severe injuries.
- Reed testified he chose to unload with the beaters running for convenience and would not have disengaged them even if he had known they could be disengaged.
- Reed sued the manufacturer, seller, and repairer for negligence (including inadequate safeguards and warnings); defendants asserted contributory negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether the undisputed deposition facts established, as a matter of law, that Reed was contributorily negligent by placing himself above exposed, moving beaters, thereby barring recovery against the manufacturer, seller, and repairer.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed summary judgment for all defendants.
- Reed was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because he voluntarily exposed himself to an open and obvious mechanical hazard and failed to use reasonable care for his own safety.
- The court confined review to the assigned error—whether the depositions showed contributory negligence as a matter of law—and did not reach the merits of design-defect or warning theories.

## Legal Principles

- The test for contributory negligence is objective: it is not whether the plaintiff actually knew of the danger, but whether a reasonable person, using ordinary care, should have known he was in peril.
- A plaintiff who exposes himself to an open and obvious danger and thereby fails to exercise reasonable care is barred from recovery by contributory negligence.
- Custom or usage does not excuse conduct that is otherwise negligent.
- Summary judgment is proper when, even viewing the record most favorably to the plaintiff, reasonable minds could not differ that the plaintiff’s contributory negligence bars the claim.

## Conclusion

Because Reed knowingly chose a method that placed him on unstable material directly above exposed, rotating beaters, the court held his conduct constituted contributory negligence as a matter of law, precluding recovery and supporting summary judgment for all defendants.


Reed v. Carlyle & Martin, Inc., 202 S.E.2d 874 (Va. 1974)