How does assumption of risk factor into negligence cases?

Assumption of risk is a legal doctrine often used in negligence cases as a defense by the defendant. It involves the idea that a person who voluntarily and knowingly exposes themselves to a known risk cannot later claim compensation for injuries resulting from that risk. In other words, if an individual is aware of a potential danger and still chooses to engage in an activity that involves that risk, they may be prevented from suing for injuries related to that activity.

Key Elements of Assumption of Risk

In order for assumption of risk to apply as a defense in a negligence case, certain elements must be established:

• Knowledge of the Risk: The person must have had actual knowledge or been reasonably aware of the risk involved. This means they must have been fully informed about the danger they were exposed to, either through direct communication, obvious circumstances, or previous experience.
• Voluntary Acceptance of the Risk: The individual must voluntarily accept the risk. This implies that they consciously and willingly choose to participate in the activity despite knowing the potential for injury. If someone is coerced or forced into a situation where they are exposed to risk, assumption of risk is not applicable.
• Inherent Risks of the Activity: The risk must be inherent to the activity itself. For instance, in sports, participants are typically aware of the general risks involved (e.g., the risk of injury in contact sports like football or hockey). Courts may apply assumption of risk when the injury is part of the normal, expected hazards of the activity.

Types of Assumption of Risk

Express Assumption of Risk

This occurs when an individual explicitly agrees to take on the risk, usually by signing a waiver or release of liability before participating in an activity. For example, many amusement parks, gyms, or sporting events require participants to sign waivers acknowledging the risks involved. By signing, the individual voluntarily accepts the risk and acknowledges that the provider is not liable for certain types of injuries.

Example

A person who signs a waiver before participating in a rock-climbing activity is expressly assuming the risks of potential injury, including falls, equipment failure, or other accidents that could occur during the climb.

Implied Assumption of Risk

This occurs when a person engages in an activity that inherently involves known risks, even without an explicit agreement or waiver. Courts may find that the individual has assumed the risk based on their participation in the activity, particularly when the risks are obvious and well-known.

Example

If a spectator attends a baseball game, they implicitly assume the risk of being hit by a foul ball or a bat that flies into the stands, as these risks are part of the normal experience of attending such an event.

How Assumption of Risk Affects Negligence Cases

In negligence cases, if the defendant can prove that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury, this can serve as a powerful defense, potentially reducing or eliminating liability. Here’s how it typically works:

Defendant's Argument

The defendant will argue that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily exposed themselves to a known risk and, therefore, should not be entitled to compensation. If successful, this defense can either completely negate the plaintiff’s claim or reduce the damages awarded.

Impact on Damages

If the defense of assumption of risk is proven, it can prevent the plaintiff from receiving damages altogether, or it can reduce the amount of damages awarded. For example, if a participant in a dangerous activity suffers an injury but was fully aware of the risks and still chose to proceed, the court may rule that they are responsible for their injuries, even if the defendant was negligent in other ways.

Comparing Assumption of Risk with Contributory Negligence

Assumption of risk differs from contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is when a plaintiff’s own negligent actions contribute to their injury, while assumption of risk focuses on the plaintiff's voluntary decision to take on known risks. While contributory negligence may reduce the plaintiff's recovery, assumption of risk can completely bar recovery in some cases.

Exceptions and Limitations

While assumption of risk can be an effective defense, it has some limitations:

Public Policy Considerations

Courts may refuse to allow the assumption of risk defense in situations where it would contravene public policy. For example, in cases involving gross negligence or when an individual is unable to fully appreciate the risk (such as in certain medical treatments or unsafe conditions), the defense may not apply.

Waivers and Contracts

Waivers of liability are commonly used in recreational and commercial activities to establish assumption of risk. However, these waivers may not always be enforceable, particularly if they are overly broad, unclear, or if they waive liability for gross negligence or intentional harm. Courts are often reluctant to enforce waivers that release a party from liability for serious misconduct.

Example

In a case where a person participates in a ski race and is injured when they collide with another skier, the ski resort might argue that the participant assumed the risk of injury inherent in skiing. If the skier knew the risks (such as collisions or falls) and voluntarily chose to participate in the event, the resort could use the assumption of risk defense to argue that they should not be liable for the skier’s injuries.

However, if the collision was caused by the resort’s negligence, such as failing to properly maintain the racecourse or warning about hidden hazards, the assumption of risk defense might not succeed in preventing a claim for damages.