Category: 

What is the Assumption of Risk?

Article Details
  • Written By: Charity Delich
  • Edited By: Bronwyn Harris
  • Last Modified Date: 02 December 2016
  • Copyright Protected:
    2003-2016
    Conjecture Corporation
  • Print this Article
Free Widgets for your Site/Blog
The Argentinian resort town of Epecuén was submerged by flooding for years; it is now populated by one elderly man.  more...

December 5 ,  1933 :  Prohibition ended in the US.  more...

Assumption of risk is a defense that is sometimes raised in personal injury lawsuits. Essentially, under this doctrine, a party is not allowed to recover damages from an injury if she voluntarily put herself in harm’s way or voluntarily exposed herself to a known danger. A defendant generally raises this defense in order to discount facts given by the plaintiff.

For example, assume that Joe broke his arm when he fell into a manhole while walking down the street in the town of Anywhere. He may sue the town for negligence, seeking to recover damages for his injuries. Suppose, however, that the town had roped off the area where the manhole was and posted large signs warning pedestrians to avoid it. In its defense, the town may raise the doctrine of assumption of risk. The town may argue that Joe voluntarily assumed the risk of injury because he walked through the area even though it was roped off and large warning signs were posted.

Ad

Typically, the defendant must affirmatively prove assumption of risk in order for it to stand as a defense in court. This is done by first showing that the plaintiff was aware of a particular risk. In the example above this would be demonstrated by evidence showing that the town had posted signs and roped off the area, making Joe aware of the risk. The second element that must be proved is that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk. By choosing to ignore the ropes and signs, Joe arguably voluntarily assumed the risk of getting injured in the manhole.

This defense can be classified as express or implied. Express assumption of risk occurs when a plaintiff explicitly agrees to take on a risk. This is often done through a contract. For instance, if Jane is going skydiving, she will likely be required to sign a release form indicating that she is aware that skydiving is dangerous but she agrees to accept the risks associated with it. The release will also like relieve the skydiving company of liability in the event Jane is injured.

Implied assumption of risk occurs when the plaintiff’s actions imply that the plaintiff has consent to assume the risk. Although the plaintiff does not have a contract with the defendant, the plaintiff’s conduct evidences that the plaintiff has agreed to voluntarily take on the risk. Joe’s injuries from the manhole, in the example above, would be implied assumption of risk.

Ad

You might also Like

Recommended

Discuss this Article

indemnifyme
Post 3

Assumption of risk is relevant in the field of insurance too. Every state has some coverages that are mandatory and other coverages that must be offered. If someone wants to turn down the coverages that aren't mandatory, they have to sign a waiver.

A lot of times people do this to save money. Then when something happens they are upset it isn't covered. That's why it's important for us to get them to sign a release saying they understand they're assuming the risk by saying "no" to the coverage.

JessicaLynn
Post 2

@JaneAir - Wow it sounds like your friend should have gotten some money from the city in that instance.

However, there are definitely some times when people do assume the risk. I think it's really good that this is an acceptable defense in a law suit.

Sometimes, people choose to do risky things knowing they are risky. If someone knows the risk I don't think they should be able to turn around and sue if something bad happens when they knew it might.

JaneAir
Post 1

It's funny that falling into a manhole was used as the example in this article because I actually know someone that was injured this way. Unfortunately, she wasn't able to recover any money from the city.

The manhole wasn't roped off or anything like that, but somehow the city got out of the lawsuit. I always thought that was a crazy story, because like the article said, no one would reasonably assume it's just risky to walk down the street!

Post your comments

Post Anonymously

Login

username
password
forgot password?

Register

username
password
confirm
email