In all cases brought under sections 48-101 to 48-108,
it shall not be a defense (a) that the employee was negligent, unless
it shall also appear that such negligence was willful, or that the
employee was in a state of intoxication; (b) that the injury was caused
by the negligence of a fellow employee; or (c) that the employee had
assumed the risks inherent in, or incidental to, or arising from the
failure of the employer to provide and maintain safe premises and
suitable appliances, which grounds of defense are hereby abolished.
Laws 1913, c. 198, § 2, p. 579;
R.S.1913, § 3643;
C.S.1922, § 3025;
C.S.1929, § 48-102;
R.S.1943, § 48-102;
Laws 1971, LB 572, § 2.
This section eliminates from
workers' compensation proceedings the three common-law defenses of
contributory negligence, the fellow-servant rule, and assumption of the
risk, preserving only the employee's willful negligence and
intoxication as defenses which the employer may raise. Estate of Coe v.
Willmes Trucking, 268 Neb. 880, 689 N.W.2d 318 (2004).
Willful exposure to freezing
weather was not a defense. Mead v. Missouri Valley Grain, Inc., 178
Neb. 553, 134 N.W.2d 243 (1965).
Allegation that disability was
due to employee's failure to allow normal recovery constituted charge
of willful negligence. Rexroat v. State, 142 Neb. 596, 7 N.W.2d 163
Defense of assumption of risk is not available. Nedela v. Mares Auto Co., 110 Neb. 108, 193 N.W. 345 (1923).
Defense that plaintiff was
willfully negligent was not established by evidence. Brown v. York
Water Co., 104 Neb. 516, 177 N.W. 833 (1920).
Save Time & Effort! Our Premium Members Get: Searchable Rules & Statutes, Compliance Information, Benefits Calculators, Case Law, & Reference