When you engage in certain activities—whether it’s playing sports, visiting an amusement park, or participating in other recreational activities—you may be taking on some level of risk. The legal doctrine of assumption of risk is an important concept in personal injury law, as it can limit or completely bar a plaintiff from recovering damages if they voluntarily chose to participate in an activity they knew could be dangerous.
In this article, we’ll explain what assumption of risk means, how it applies to personal injury claims, and when it may be used as a defense by the defendant.
1. What Is Assumption of Risk?
Assumption of risk is a legal defense used in personal injury cases when the defendant argues that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily took on a risky activity that led to their injury. This means that the plaintiff understood the potential dangers involved and agreed to proceed despite those risks. In cases where assumption of risk applies, it can reduce or eliminate the defendant’s liability, as the plaintiff is considered to have accepted the possibility of injury by engaging in the activity.
Key Elements of Assumption of Risk:
- Knowledge of the risk: The plaintiff must have had an understanding of the specific risks involved in the activity.
- Voluntary participation: The plaintiff must have voluntarily chosen to engage in the activity, knowing the risks.
- No coercion: The plaintiff must not have been forced or coerced into participating.
Why it matters:
Understanding assumption of risk is crucial because it can affect the outcome of a personal injury claim. If a defendant successfully proves that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury, the plaintiff may not be able to recover compensation for their injuries.
Key takeaway:
Assumption of risk means that a plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily accepted the risks associated with an activity, which can limit or bar their ability to recover damages in a personal injury claim.
2. Types of Assumption of Risk
There are two main types of assumption of risk in personal injury law: express and implied. Both can impact whether the plaintiff can successfully pursue compensation for their injuries, but they differ in how the risk is communicated and accepted.
1. Express Assumption of Risk:
Express assumption of risk occurs when the plaintiff explicitly agrees to take on the risks involved in an activity, usually by signing a waiver or release of liability form. These forms are commonly used in activities like sports, recreational events, and adventure parks. By signing the waiver, the plaintiff acknowledges that they understand the risks and agree not to hold the business or organization responsible for any resulting injuries.
Example of Express Assumption of Risk:
- If you sign a waiver before going skydiving, acknowledging that skydiving is inherently dangerous, and you get injured during the jump, the skydiving company may use the waiver as a defense against your personal injury claim.
2. Implied Assumption of Risk:
Implied assumption of risk occurs when the plaintiff’s actions show that they understood and accepted the risks of an activity, even if they did not sign a waiver. This type of assumption of risk is based on common sense—certain activities are widely recognized as dangerous, and people who participate in them are presumed to accept those risks.
Example of Implied Assumption of Risk:
- If you participate in a pickup basketball game and suffer an injury while playing, the assumption of risk may apply because you knowingly engaged in a physical sport where injuries are common.
Why it matters:
Both express and implied assumption of risk can serve as strong defenses in personal injury claims. Waivers can make it difficult for plaintiffs to sue, while implied assumption of risk may apply in activities where the danger is obvious.
Key takeaway:
Express assumption of risk involves signing a waiver, while implied assumption of risk occurs when someone participates in an activity where the risks are well known.
3. How Assumption of Risk Is Used as a Defense
In personal injury cases, the defendant may argue that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury as a way to avoid liability. If the defendant can successfully prove assumption of risk, they may be able to reduce or eliminate their responsibility for the plaintiff’s injuries.
How Assumption of Risk Works as a Defense:
- Proving Knowledge of Risk:
- The defendant must show that the plaintiff was aware of the specific risks associated with the activity. This can be demonstrated through signed waivers, safety warnings, or the plaintiff’s prior experience with similar activities.
- Example: If a plaintiff sues a gym after injuring themselves while lifting weights, the gym may argue that the plaintiff was aware of the risks, especially if there were warning signs or if the plaintiff was an experienced lifter.
- Demonstrating Voluntary Participation:
- The defendant must prove that the plaintiff voluntarily chose to engage in the activity despite knowing the risks. If the plaintiff was not coerced or pressured into participating, the assumption of risk defense may apply.
- Example: If someone attends a baseball game and is injured by a foul ball, the stadium may argue that the plaintiff assumed the risk by voluntarily attending the game, as foul balls are a well-known hazard.
- Applying to Certain Inherent Risks:
- In some cases, courts recognize that certain activities come with inherent risks that participants accept by engaging in them. This is common in sports and recreational activities.
- Example: If a skier is injured while skiing, the ski resort may argue that the skier assumed the risk of falling or colliding with obstacles, which are inherent dangers in the sport.
Why it matters:
Assumption of risk can be a powerful defense for defendants in personal injury cases. By showing that the plaintiff knowingly accepted the risks involved in the activity, the defendant may be able to avoid liability for the injury.
Key takeaway:
The assumption of risk defense requires proving that the plaintiff was aware of the risks and voluntarily participated in the activity despite those risks.
4. Limitations of Assumption of Risk
While assumption of risk is a common defense in personal injury claims, it has its limitations. In some cases, the defense may not apply, or it may be limited by public policy and the circumstances surrounding the injury.
When Assumption of Risk Does Not Apply:
- Gross Negligence or Intentional Harm:
- Assumption of risk does not protect a defendant from liability if they engaged in gross negligence or intentional misconduct. If the defendant’s actions go beyond ordinary negligence and involve reckless or intentional harm, the plaintiff may still recover damages.
- Example: If a theme park operator intentionally fails to maintain a ride and a visitor is injured as a result, the operator cannot use assumption of risk as a defense, even if the visitor signed a waiver.
- Unforeseen Hazards:
- The plaintiff must have been aware of and accepted the specific risks involved in the activity. If the injury was caused by an unforeseen hazard that the plaintiff could not have anticipated, the assumption of risk defense may not apply.
- Example: If a skier is injured because of a hidden, unmarked hazard on a ski slope, they may argue that they did not assume the risk of this unexpected danger.
- Involuntary Participation:
- Assumption of risk only applies when the plaintiff voluntarily chooses to engage in the risky activity. If the plaintiff was forced or coerced into participating, they may still be able to recover damages.
- Example: If someone is pressured into participating in a dangerous stunt and is injured, they may argue that they did not voluntarily assume the risk.
Why it matters:
Understanding the limitations of assumption of risk is important for plaintiffs who may still have a valid claim despite engaging in a risky activity. Courts will not allow assumption of risk to shield defendants from gross negligence or hidden dangers.
Key takeaway:
Assumption of risk does not apply in cases involving gross negligence, unforeseen hazards, or involuntary participation.
5. Comparative Negligence and Assumption of Risk
In some states, comparative negligence laws may affect how assumption of risk is applied in personal injury cases. Under comparative negligence, the plaintiff’s damages may be reduced based on their percentage of fault, even if assumption of risk is a factor.
Example of Comparative Negligence with Assumption of Risk:
- If a plaintiff is injured while engaging in a recreational activity, the court may find that they assumed 50% of the risk by participating. However, if the defendant’s negligence contributed to the injury, the plaintiff may still recover damages, but their compensation will be reduced based on their share of fault.
- Example: If a plaintiff is awarded $100,000 in damages but is found to be 50% at fault for assuming the risk, they would receive $50,000 in compensation.
Why it matters:
Comparative negligence allows plaintiffs to recover some compensation even if they assumed part of the risk. It ensures that liability is shared based on each party’s responsibility for the injury.
Key takeaway:
In comparative negligence states, assumption of risk may reduce the plaintiff’s compensation, but it does not necessarily bar them from recovering damages.
Conclusion
Assumption of risk is a key defense in personal injury cases where the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily engages in a risky activity. Whether it’s through a signed waiver (express assumption) or by participating in a dangerous activity (implied assumption), this legal doctrine can limit or prevent the plaintiff from recovering damages. However, there are important limitations to the assumption of risk defense, especially in cases involving gross negligence or unforeseen hazards. Understanding how assumption of risk works can help both plaintiffs and defendants navigate personal injury claims.
Disclaimer: The content of this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided is based on general research and is not intended to be a substitute for professional legal advice or consultation with a qualified attorney. Always consult with a lawyer regarding your specific legal situation.
Related Articles
- What Does “Burden of Proof” Mean in Personal Injury Lawsuits?
- What Is a Demand Letter in a Personal Injury Case?
- What Are Actual Damages and How Are They Calculated?
- Understanding Assumption of Risk in Personal Injury Claims
- What Is Causation in Personal Injury Law?
More from This Category
- The Role of Depositions in Personal Injury Cases: What to Expect
- What Is Arbitration and How Does It Differ from Mediation?
- Understanding Settlement Agreements: What Happens When You Settle a Case
- What Does “Duty of Care” Mean in Personal Injury Law?
- What Is Tort Law? A Basic Guide for Personal Injury Claims
Additional Resources
- Explaining Medical Malpractice: What You Need to Know
- What Is Premises Liability in Personal Injury Claims?
- The Role of an Expert Witness in Personal Injury Cases
- What Is Comparative Negligence and How Does It Affect Your Case?
- Understanding Statutes of Limitations in Personal Injury Law
- What Are Punitive Damages and When Can You Claim Them?
- What Is a Contingency Fee Agreement? How It Works in Personal Injury Cases
- The Difference Between Economic and Non-Economic Damages
- Understanding Liability: Who Is Legally Responsible for an Accident?
- What Is Negligence in a Personal Injury Case?