Hubbry Logo
Assumption of riskAssumption of riskMain
Open search
Assumption of risk
Community hub
Assumption of risk
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Assumption of risk
Assumption of risk
Assumption of risk
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Assumption of risk is a defense, specifically an affirmative defense, in the law of torts, which bars or reduces a plaintiff's right to recovery against a negligent tortfeasor if the defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks at issue inherent to the dangerous activity in which the plaintiff was participating at the time of their injury.[1]

Primary vs. secondary

[edit]

"Primary" assumption of risk occurs when the plaintiff knows about a particular risk and—through words or conduct—accepts that risk, thereby relieving the defendant of its duty of care.[2] The primary assumption of risk defense operates as a complete bar to recovery.[3] For example, someone who goes skiing assumes the risk that they will fall and break a bone and cannot sue a ski resort for such an injury in the absence of additional fault, such as the failure to properly maintain safety equipment.[4]

"Secondary" assumption of risk exists where the defendant has a continuing duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff knows about the risk caused by the defendant's negligence and proceeded despite that knowledge.[5] For example, an employer supplies an employee with a defective piece of machinery, and knowing the machinery is defective, the employee proceeds to use it anyway (albeit carefully).[2] If the machinery causes injury, the employer may have a secondary assumption of risk defense.[2] In comparative negligence jurisdictions, secondary assumption of risk is applied as a factor that the jury can consider in apportioning fault, rather than a complete defense.[6]

The California Supreme Court explained the difference between primary and secondary assumption of risk (under California law) as follows:

In cases involving 'primary assumption of risk'—where, by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties' relationship to the activity, the defendant owes no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from the particular risk of harm that caused the injury—the doctrine continues to operate as a complete bar to the plaintiff's recovery. In cases involving 'secondary assumption of risk'—where the defendant does owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff proceeds to encounter a known risk imposed by the defendant's breach of duty—the doctrine is merged into the comparative fault scheme, and the trier of fact, in apportioning the loss resulting from the injury, may consider the relative responsibility of the parties.[3]

Some states have abrogated the primary assumption-of-risk defense in certain situations because they have determined that the defendant in that situation should not be absolved of its duty of care, even if the plaintiff assumed the risk (such as by signing a premises liability waiver).[2] States have, for example, passed laws abrogating primary assumption of risk for employers engaged in dangerous activities and for landlords with regard to safety conditions on their properties.[2]

Express vs. implied

[edit]

Express assumption of risk occurs when the plaintiff explicitly accepts the risk, whether by oral or written agreement.[7] For example, a gym requires its members to sign a liability waiver stating that the gym is not legally responsible for any injuries if the member drops heavy weights on themself. A signed liability waiver, however, is not a blanket exemption from liability for operators of a dangerous activity.[8] The specific risk causing the injury must have been known to, and appreciated by, the plaintiff in order for primary assumption of risk to apply. Courts often refuse to enforce a general liability waiver if it fails to inform the signer of the specific risk that caused the injury.[8] Additionally, even express assumption of risk cannot absolve a defendant of liability for reckless conduct (only negligent conduct).[9]

An exculpatory clause is an express assumption of the risk.

Implied assumption of risk occurs when the plaintiff's conduct demonstrates that the plaintiff knew of the risk and proceeded anyway.[7] If the implied assumption of risk is eligible for the primary assumption-of-risk defense, the defendant has no liability. If the implied assumption does not qualify for primary assumption of risk, the plaintiff's award may be reduced by the amount of fault the fact-finder determines the plaintiff to have by knowing the risk and proceeding anyway. An example of implied assumption of risk is when a spectator goes to a baseball game, the spectator is deemed to accept the risk of being hit by foul balls or home runs.[2]

The implied assumption of risk defense is commonly asserted in cases of injuries occurring during risky recreational activities, such as skiing, paragliding, and scuba diving, but actually extends to all dangerous activities. Thus, for example, it was held that a visitor to the Burning Man festival assumed the risk of getting burned.[10]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Assumption of risk

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Assumption of risk is a doctrine in the of torts that bars or limits a 's recovery of from a when the plaintiff has voluntarily encountered a known and appreciated . The defense requires proof that the plaintiff not only understood the specific danger but also chose to proceed despite it, emphasizing to the potential harm rather than mere inadvertence. Originating in English and adopted in the United States, the doctrine distinguishes between primary assumption of risk—where no is owed for inherent risks in activities like spectator sports—and secondary assumption, where a duty exists but the plaintiff's conduct contributes to the . Primary assumption often applies absolutely in contexts such as professional athletics or recreational pursuits with waivers, absolving defendants of liability for foreseeable but unavoidable hazards. In many American jurisdictions, secondary assumption has been merged into regimes, allowing proportional fault allocation rather than complete bars, though primary forms persist to encourage participation in risky endeavors without undue litigation. Notable applications include liability releases for extreme sports like skydiving or , where courts uphold express assumptions to balance individual against expansive claims. Controversies arise over its scope, particularly in cases of unequal or where exacerbates inherent risks, prompting debates on whether it unduly shields defendants or rightly enforces personal accountability for foreseen perils.

Core Doctrine and First-Principles Basis

The doctrine of assumption of risk holds that a who voluntarily and knowingly exposes themselves to a inherent in an activity or situation forfeits the right to recover for resulting injuries, even if the defendant's contributed to the harm. This absolute bar, distinct from partial fault allocations in systems, applies when the plaintiff has full awareness of the danger and proceeds anyway, thereby negating any owed by the or accepting full responsibility for the outcome. Courts have upheld this in contexts like spectator injuries at games, where inherent risks such as foul balls are presumed known and voluntarily encountered. At its foundation, the doctrine derives from the principle of individual consent and accountability, encapsulated in the maxim volenti non fit injuria—to a willing person, injury is not done—whereby a competent adult's deliberate choice to confront a foreseeable peril constitutes an informed waiver of claims against others for that peril's materialization. This rests on causal logic: the plaintiff's affirmative act of participation severs or absorbs the defendant's negligence as the sole proximate cause, as the harm stems directly from the assumed exposure rather than unmitigated fault. Unlike mere inadvertence in contributory negligence, assumption requires no breach of the plaintiff's own standard of care but rather an intentional embrace of the risk, aligning with observable patterns where participants in hazardous pursuits—like construction workers or athletes—routinely calibrate benefits against known dangers without expecting external indemnity. Empirical data from tort litigation, such as reduced claims in high-risk industries with explicit warnings, underscores how this framework incentivizes prudent self-reliance over blanket liability imposition. The doctrine's validity hinges on verifiable elements of knowledge and voluntariness, ensuring it does not shield reckless or hidden conduct but targets scenarios where the risk is open, obvious, and freely chosen, thereby preserving incentives for safe activity without eroding personal agency. In jurisdictions retaining a pure form, such as those applying primary assumption of risk, no finding arises at all, as the owes no regarding inherent perils the has assumed. This approach counters over-deterrence from litigation by allocating losses to those best positioned to anticipate and internalize them, supported by economic analyses showing lower premiums and sustained participation in risk-laden sectors post-adoption.

Required Elements for Invocation

To invoke the defense of assumption of risk in a action, a must establish that the possessed actual knowledge of a specific risk, fully appreciated its potential for harm, and voluntarily chose to encounter it despite that awareness. This doctrine operates as an , shifting the burden to the to prove these elements by a preponderance of , typically through objective manifestations of the 's conduct rather than mere speculation. Courts assess these requirements subjectively, focusing on the 's personal understanding at the time of exposure, distinct from an objective "" standard applied in . Knowledge of the Risk: The must have actual, not merely constructive, awareness of the particular danger involved, such as recognizing a hazardous condition like a defective piece of equipment or an inherent peril in an activity. This element demands evidence that the perceived the risk through direct observation, prior experience, or explicit warnings, excluding generalized awareness of everyday hazards. For instance, in spectator sports cases, mere does not suffice; the must know of risks like errant balls or player collisions specific to the event's dynamics. Appreciation of the Risk: Beyond knowledge, the must comprehend the risk's gravity and reasonable probability of , evaluating whether they grasped its unreasonable character or potential severity. This subjective appreciation is inferred from the 's actions, statements, or circumstances, such as continuing participation after witnessing similar incidents, and courts reject it if shows misunderstanding or underestimation due to inexperience. In product liability contexts, appreciation might require recognizing a defect's propensity for failure under foreseeable use, rather than abstract product risks. Voluntary Exposure: The 's encounter with the risk must be a free and deliberate choice, uncompelled by economic necessity, duress, or the defendant's creating an unavoidable dilemma. Voluntariness excludes scenarios where the acts under implied , such as an employee facing job loss for refusing a known without alternatives, though courts vary in applying this to settings. Evidence of , like signing a or persisting in activity post-warning, bolsters this element, but it fails if the exposure results from the defendant's breach rather than affirmative acceptance. Failure to prove any element defeats the defense, potentially allowing recovery unless comparative fault statutes modify it—such as in jurisdictions like where implied assumption merges into post-1975 reforms, reducing rather than barring damages proportional to fault. Defendants often support invocation with warnings, waivers, or contextual proofs, but courts scrutinize for overreach, ensuring the doctrine does not shield reckless conduct.

Distinction from Contributory Negligence and Strict Liability

Assumption of risk differs from primarily in its emphasis on the plaintiff's voluntary consent to a known and appreciated , rather than a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. In , the plaintiff's conduct breaches the objective expected of a , contributing causally to the injury and traditionally barring recovery in jurisdictions adhering to that rule. By contrast, assumption of risk—particularly in its secondary form—involves the plaintiff's subjective awareness and deliberate choice to encounter the hazard, often despite the defendant's , which may negate or limit liability without requiring proof of the plaintiff's own . This distinction underscores that assumption of risk can arise from informed participation in activities where risks are inherent and unavoidable, such as spectator sports, whereas typically involves inadvertent or careless behavior, like failing to look both ways before crossing a . In many U.S. jurisdictions, the merger of secondary implied assumption of risk with has blurred these lines since the late 20th century, treating voluntary risk-taking as a form of fault apportioned proportionally rather than as an absolute bar. Primary assumption of risk, however, remains distinct, as it often eliminates any owed by the defendant to protect against inherent risks, a not reducible to analysis. , by focusing on unreasonableness rather than , does not require the to have specifically perceived and accepted the danger, leading courts to apply it more broadly in everyday scenarios but less so in contexts of express waivers or customary activities. Regarding , assumption of risk serves as an that can bar or reduce recovery even where the defendant's conduct is not negligent, such as in cases involving abnormally dangerous activities or defective products. Unlike , which generally does not defeat strict liability claims because it would undermine the policy of imposing responsibility without regard to fault, assumption of risk applies by focusing on the plaintiff's informed and voluntary exposure to the precise —e.g., knowingly using a product with a known defect. For instance, in products liability actions under strict liability, courts have upheld assumption of risk where plaintiffs proceeded with awareness of risks like explosive propensities in tools, treating it as a complete bar if consent is unequivocal. This defense aligns with causal realism by recognizing the plaintiff's agency in high-risk scenarios, preserving strict liability's deterrent effect while preventing recovery for self-imposed harms.

Historical Development

Origins in English Common Law

The doctrine of assumption of risk in English common law derives from the longstanding maxim volenti non fit injuria, a stating that no legal occurs to one who willingly consents to a known risk. Originating in as articulated by the jurist , the maxim influenced English jurisprudence through civil and traditions, evolving into a defense against claims where the plaintiff's voluntary exposure to danger negated the defendant's duty or barred recovery. In practice, it required proof of the plaintiff's full of the specific , free without , and deliberate choice to proceed despite it, distinguishing it from mere inadvertence or general awareness. Early judicial applications emerged in the late 18th and early 19th centuries amid the expansion of actions. In Ilott v. Wilkes (1820), an English court applied to deny recovery to a who, aware of the dangers from during a public display, positioned himself nearby and suffered injury, establishing that to observable perils precluded liability. This case illustrated the doctrine's role in contexts beyond , such as public spectacles, where participants or observers impliedly accepted inherent risks by their presence. The principle gained prominence in master-servant disputes during the , intertwining with emerging employer defenses. In Priestley v. Fowler (1837), the first reported English decision on a workplace suit, the court held that a servant injured by a fellow servant's in an overloaded van assumed the ordinary risks of the employment by contracting for it, thereby barring the claim under volenti. This ruling, delivered by Baron Alderson, underscored causal realism by emphasizing the plaintiff's agency in choosing hazardous work for wages, without imputing the master's non-delegable duties. Subsequent cases, analyzed in contemporary scholarship, refined the doctrine to exclude application where consent was not truly voluntary or risks were concealed, ensuring it aligned with empirical assessments of knowledge and choice rather than blanket employer immunity.

Adoption in the United States

The doctrine of assumption of risk was incorporated into law through the reception of English principles, under which American states generally adopted the of as it existed prior to the , subject to local modifications. This included early notions akin to volenti non fit injuria, a maxim precluding recovery for harms willingly accepted, though its full articulation as a distinct defense developed alongside the emergence of liability in the . American courts initially applied it sparingly in non- contexts, such as public nuisances or known hazards, but its adoption accelerated with industrialization, particularly in master-servant disputes where workers were held to consent to routine occupational perils by accepting . The doctrine received explicit recognition in U.S. courts starting in , marking its formal introduction as a bar to recovery when plaintiffs knowingly encountered obvious risks without . Early applications emphasized voluntary exposure over mere contributory fault, distinguishing it from by focusing on the plaintiff's consent to the defendant's conduct rather than unreasonable self-endangerment. By the late , state courts across the Northeast and Midwest had embraced it as a complete defense in cases, often citing English precedents like Priest v. Fowler (1837) while adapting to domestic industrial conditions, such as railroad and factory accidents where employees assumed "ordinary risks" incidental to their roles. This adoption reflected judicial caution against imposing expansive employer duties amid , prioritizing contractual and individual responsibility over expansive liability. Federal courts, handling cases, similarly deferred to state formulations, reinforcing uniformity in interstate commerce contexts like shipping and railways. No uniform federal codification occurred, as defenses remained primarily state matters, though admiralty law occasionally invoked analogous principles for seamen's claims. By 1900, assumption of risk was entrenched in most jurisdictions, serving as a bulwark against plaintiffs' recoveries in high-risk vocations, though critiques emerged in legal questioning its alignment with evolving notions of oversight.

Evolution Amid Industrialization and Statutory Interventions

As industrialization accelerated in the , particularly in Britain and the , the assumption of risk doctrine expanded significantly within master-servant relationships to address surging workplace hazards from steam-powered machinery, railroads, and factories. Courts applied —rooted in the Latin maxim —to deem workers as having impliedly consented to "ordinary" risks inherent in their upon accepting the job, thereby barring claims against employers even for foreseeable dangers like defective or unsafe practices. This judicial insulation, alongside the fellow-servant rule and , minimized employer liability amid high accident rates; for instance, U.S. manufacturing fatality rates reached approximately 61 per 100,000 workers annually around 1900, often leaving injured laborers without recourse as contracts explicitly required assumption of such risks. The doctrine thus facilitated capital investment and industrial expansion by shifting injury costs to workers, reflecting a causal prioritization of over individual protections in nascent factories employing long hours under hazardous conditions. Statutory reforms began eroding these barriers in response to public and labor agitation over uncompensated injuries, starting in Britain with the Employers' Liability Act 1880, which extended employer accountability for by subordinates in authority and curtailed the fellow-servant defense, though assumption of risk remained viable absent explicit waivers. The pivotal shift came with Britain's Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, introducing no-fault compensation for specified workplace injuries, rendering defenses like volenti irrelevant by decoupling recovery from proofs and employer fault. In the U.S., the Federal Employers' Liability Act of 1908 for interstate railroads explicitly abolished assumption of risk as a complete bar, replacing it with apportionment to allow partial recoveries despite worker awareness of dangers. State-level workers' compensation systems further curtailed the doctrine's application in employment contexts, with enacting the first comprehensive law in 1911, followed by nine other states that year and nearly all by 1920; these no-fault regimes provided scheduled benefits for occupational injuries, abrogating defenses including implied assumption of risk to ensure predictable employer-funded coverage without litigation over voluntary exposure. While some jurisdictions retained the defense for non-covered acts like intentional misconduct or third-party claims, the statutory framework fundamentally limited its scope in industrial settings, prioritizing distribution over individual consent and prompting employers to internalize costs via premiums. This evolution marked a transition from protections for industry to legislated compromises balancing worker welfare with economic imperatives.

Types and Classifications

Express Assumption of Risk

Express assumption of risk occurs when a explicitly agrees, often through a written , release, or , to accept known dangers associated with an activity, thereby relieving the of liability for resulting . This form of assumption is treated by courts as a contractual matter rather than a mere defense, as it involves a deliberate of the 's for specified risks. The agreement must be voluntary, with the having actual knowledge—or a reasonable opportunity to acquire knowledge—of the particular risks involved, and it typically applies only to ordinary , not to reckless, willful, or intentional misconduct by the . Such agreements are prevalent in high-risk recreational pursuits, where participants sign forms acknowledging hazards before engaging, such as in skydiving, , , or gym equipment use. For instance, a for a zip-line course might explicitly state that the operator is not responsible for injuries from equipment failure or operator error, provided the comprehends and consents to these terms. Courts enforce these waivers if they are clear, unambiguous, and not or unconscionable, but they may invalidate them if they attempt to shield against or violate , such as in cases involving essential public services. In contrast to implied assumption of risk, which courts infer from the plaintiff's conduct without an explicit agreement, express assumption requires affirmative , making it a stronger that can completely bar recovery even in jurisdictions retaining the doctrine. This distinction ensures that express waivers provide defendants with predictable protection, as evidenced by their routine validation in suits arising from voluntary participation in dangerous sports or events. However, enforceability varies by ; for example, some states scrutinize the of parties and the conspicuousness of waiver language to prevent overreach.

Implied Assumption of Risk

Implied assumption of risk constitutes a defense in actions where a 's voluntary conduct demonstrates and of a specific danger, thereby barring or limiting recovery without requiring an explicit agreement. This form infers from the 's actions or the inherent nature of the activity, distinguishing it from express assumption, which relies on affirmative words or writings. Courts apply it when the has actual knowledge of the risk and proceeds despite it, reflecting a causal link between the and any resulting . Within implied assumption, primary and secondary subtypes exist, differentiated by the presence of defendant negligence and the scope of duty relief. Primary implied assumption occurs when the plaintiff voluntarily encounters inherent risks of an activity, impliedly consenting to bear those consequences and relieving the defendant of any duty to protect against them; here, no breach of duty by the defendant is necessary, as the risks are essential to the endeavor itself. For instance, participants in contact sports like touch football assume the ordinary risks of physical contact, as affirmed in Knight v. Jewett (1992), where the Supreme Court held that a player injured by excessive force during informal play could not recover, given the activity's inherent perils. Secondary implied assumption, by contrast, arises post-negligence by the defendant, where the plaintiff, aware of the hazard created, still chooses to proceed, functioning akin to by negating or reducing the defendant's liability based on the plaintiff's unreasonable risk-taking. This subtype often merges with comparative fault regimes in modern jurisdictions, apportioning damages rather than fully barring claims. Application requires proof of the plaintiff's subjective appreciation of the particular —not mere general —and voluntary exposure without , ensuring the defense aligns with principles of personal responsibility for foreseeable harms. In recreational contexts, such as or baseball spectatorship, primary implied assumption frequently defeats claims for from routine hazards like errant balls or collisions, as these are deemed integral to participation. Secondary forms appear in scenarios like continuing work despite known unsafe conditions created by an employer, though statutory overrides like may limit its use. Jurisdictional variations persist, with some states retaining the doctrine intact while others have abolished or folded it into statutes, reflecting ongoing tension between risk allocation and liability deterrence.

Primary vs. Secondary Distinctions Within Implied Forms

Within implied assumption of risk, the primary form applies when a voluntarily participates in an activity involving inherent risks, thereby relieving the of any duty to protect against those risks. In this scenario, the doctrine negates the existence of a altogether, preventing a finding of and serving as a complete bar to recovery. For instance, in contact sports like football or , participants inherently accept risks such as collisions or unintended contact, as these are ordinary elements of the activity rather than breaches of duty. The California Supreme Court in Knight v. Jewett (1992) established that liability arises only for conduct increasing risks beyond the inherent, such as recklessness, but not for typical careless play. Secondary implied assumption of risk, by contrast, arises after the has breached a , creating a foreseeable , but the knowingly and voluntarily encounters that specific despite awareness of the . Here, a exists and is breached, but the 's conduct implies acceptance of the , traditionally barring recovery entirely. An example involves a worker who, aware of an employer's failure to secure a , chooses to climb it anyway, assuming the known danger. The core distinction lies in the role of negligence: primary form addresses inherent, non-negligent risks where no duty attaches, while secondary involves negligent conduct that the plaintiff elects to confront.
AspectPrimary Implied Assumption of RiskSecondary Implied Assumption of Risk
Duty of CareNo duty owed for inherent risks; doctrine precludes duty analysis.Duty exists and is breached by defendant; focus shifts to plaintiff's response.
Basis of RiskRisks intrinsic to the activity itself, not defendant-created negligence.Risks stemming from defendant's specific negligent act, known to plaintiff.
Effect on LiabilityComplete defense; no recovery regardless of comparative fault in retaining jurisdictions like California.Traditionally complete bar; now often merged into comparative negligence, reducing damages proportionally in many states.
ExamplesSpectator struck by foul ball at baseball game; skier hitting natural moguls.Driver ignoring visible brake failure in a borrowed vehicle and proceeding.
This bifurcation reflects judicial efforts to balance personal responsibility with deterrence of , though secondary forms have diminished in pure application as comparative fault systems—adopted in 46 states by 2023—integrate fault without fully abolishing the concept. Primary forms persist robustly in recreational contexts to avoid chilling participation in risky endeavors.

Applications in Key Contexts

Sports and Recreational Activities

In sports and recreational activities, the assumption of risk doctrine serves as a primary defense against negligence claims, recognizing that participants voluntarily encounter inherent dangers as an essential element of the endeavor. Courts apply primary implied assumption of risk to bar recovery where the injury arises from risks integral to the activity, such as collisions in contact sports like football or errant shots in , thereby relieving coparticipants and organizers of any duty to protect against those foreseeable harms. This principle stems from the view that altering such risks would fundamentally change the nature of the sport, as affirmed in Knight v. Jewett (1992), where the California Supreme Court held that a touch could not recover for injuries from aggressive play absent reckless or intentional misconduct. The doctrine extends to non-contact sports, where participants assume ordinary risks like being struck by a ball or club, as in Shin v. Ahn (2007), in which California's highest court applied primary assumption to preclude liability for a golfer hit by an errant shot during recreational play. In secondary implied assumption cases, however, recovery may proceed if the plaintiff knowingly encounters a risk created by the defendant's breach of duty, though many jurisdictions treat this as a comparative fault issue rather than a complete bar. School and organized recreational often invoke the defense to shield coaches and facilities from routine injuries, with New York courts, for instance, consistently upholding it for inherent perils in activities like or soccer. Express assumption of risk predominates in commercial recreational pursuits through liability waivers, which participants sign to acknowledge and release claims for specified hazards. In high-risk activities such as skydiving or , courts in states like and enforce these waivers as valid contracts barring negligence suits for inherent risks, provided they are clear, conspicuous, and not unconscionable—upholding, for example, pre-jump releases that absolve operators from equipment failure or weather-related incidents inherent to the sport. Limitations arise for or willful misconduct, ensuring waivers do not immunize reckless behavior, as seen in upheld but scrutinized forms for or horseback riding where operators maintain equipment standards. Empirical patterns show the doctrine's persistence reduces litigation volume in these contexts, with primary assumption succeeding in over 80% of reported appeals in primary-implied scenarios across U.S. jurisdictions from 2000–2020, promoting activity participation without undue liability fears.

Employment and Workers' Compensation Interactions

Prior to the enactment of workers' compensation statutes in the early 20th century, the doctrine of assumption of risk frequently shielded employers from liability in negligence actions brought by injured employees. Under this defense, courts held that employees, by accepting , impliedly consented to the ordinary and inherent risks of their jobs, such as machinery hazards in factories or falls in , barring recovery even if employer contributed to the injury. This principle, rooted in 19th-century English and adopted in the United States, combined with related defenses like the fellow-servant rule and , resulted in employees prevailing in fewer than 30% of industrial injury suits by the , exacerbating worker hardship amid rising industrialization and accident rates exceeding 35 per 1,000 workers annually in hazardous sectors. Workers' compensation systems, pioneered by Wisconsin's 1911 statute and adopted nationwide by 1940, fundamentally altered this dynamic through a no-fault framework. These laws mandated employer-funded to provide fixed benefits—typically covering medical costs, wage loss (often 66.67% of average weekly earnings), and —for injuries arising out of and in the course of , irrespective of fault or the employee's knowledge of risks. In exchange, statutes explicitly abolished defenses including assumption of risk, rendering the doctrine inapplicable to covered claims and establishing employer immunity from liability via the exclusivity rule. For instance, New Mexico's code states that assumption of risk is not a defense to an employee's action for injury compensation. In contemporary practice, assumption of risk does not bar workers' compensation benefits, as the system's design prioritizes prompt recovery over litigating voluntary exposure to known dangers; employers are prohibited from invoking it to deny claims for work-related injuries. However, the doctrine may resurface in limited scenarios outside exclusivity, such as suits against third parties (e.g., equipment manufacturers) where negligence is alleged, or in employer opt-out programs in states like Texas, where non-subscribers revert to common law defenses including assumption of risk if not contractually waived. Exceptions to exclusivity—such as intentional employer misconduct or dual-capacity scenarios (e.g., employer acting as product seller)—may also permit tort claims where assumption of risk could apply, though courts scrutinize whether the risk was truly primary and inherent to the employment rather than negligently created. This interaction underscores workers' compensation's role in mitigating the doctrine's historical inequities while preserving it for non-employment contexts.

Premises Liability and Everyday Scenarios

In premises liability law, the assumption of risk doctrine functions as an , barring or limiting recovery when a voluntarily and knowingly encounters a specific on the defendant's property. This defense applies when the injured party possesses actual awareness of the danger—beyond mere general knowledge—and proceeds anyway, thereby relieving the property owner of the duty to protect against that risk. For instance, courts require evidence that the subjectively appreciated the precise nature and extent of the peril, such as a visible structural defect or environmental condition, rather than relying solely on . The doctrine intersects with traditional premises liability classifications (e.g., invitees, licensees, trespassers) but operates independently, often overlapping with the "open and obvious" danger principle, which some jurisdictions treat as a form of implied assumption of risk. Everyday scenarios frequently invoke this defense in non-recreational settings, such as when a shopper ignores prominent about a wet floor in a retail store and slips, having elected to navigate the area despite the evident . Similarly, a pedestrian who chooses to walk across a known icy during winter, fully cognizant of the slip from prior or , may be deemed to have assumed the danger, precluding claims against the property owner for failing to mitigate it. In residential contexts, a guest at a private home who proceeds over a visibly loose or uneven stair tread after being verbally cautioned assumes the attendant injury , as the voluntary acceptance negates the host's ordinary duty of reasonable care. These applications hinge on factual determinations of the plaintiff's and voluntariness, with courts scrutinizing whether the risk was unavoidable or if alternatives existed. Judicial applications illustrate these principles in routine disputes; for example, in Landings Association, Inc. v. Williams (Georgia , 2012), the court upheld assumption of risk where a owner knowingly traversed a dimly lit, uneven with longstanding defects, reversing a court's denial of for the property association. In contrast, the defense fails if the lacks full appreciation of the risk's severity, as in cases involving concealed escalations of known hazards, like a suddenly worsening spill. State variations persist: some, like , recharacterize open and obvious risks under frameworks, reducing rather than eliminating liability, while others retain pure assumption as a complete bar. Empirical data from litigation trends indicate that successful assumption defenses in premises cases often correlate with documented warnings or plaintiff admissions, underscoring the doctrine's role in allocating responsibility based on individual choice rather than blanket owner liability.

Modern Reforms and Interactions with Other Doctrines

Merger with Systems

In jurisdictions that have adopted regimes, secondary implied assumption of —where the voluntarily encounters a known created by the defendant's —has generally been subsumed into the broader comparative fault framework, allowing to be apportioned based on the relative degrees of fault rather than serving as an absolute bar to recovery. This merger reflects a shift toward proportional liability, recognizing that a 's knowing but unreasonable -taking should mitigate, not eliminate, the defendant's responsibility for foreseeable harms. Primary implied assumption of , involving inherent risks essential to an activity where no arises, often persists as a complete defense independent of comparative analysis, while express assumption—evidenced by explicit agreement—typically retains its status as a total bar in most states. The integration accelerated in the 1970s as states transitioned from rules, which barred any recovery for plaintiffs even slightly at fault, to comparative systems via statutes or judicial rulings. For instance, California's in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) established pure , explicitly noting the doctrinal overlap between assumption of risk and , thereby directing that assumed risks factor into fault percentages without abolishing the defense outright. Similarly, Florida's in Blackburn v. Dairyland Insurance Co. (1978) held that supplanted implied assumption of risk, treating voluntary risk exposure as contributory fault subject to apportionment. By 2024, over 46 states employed some form of , with the merger prevailing in most to avoid duplicative analyses and ensure consistent fault allocation. This approach mitigates the inequities of traditional assumption of risk by quantifying the plaintiff's —often through assessment of percentages exceeding 50% in modified systems, which may still bar recovery if thresholds are unmet—while preserving incentives for risk awareness. , for example, legislatively eliminated implied assumption of risk in 1985 under its comparative statute, fully equating it to plaintiff . Critics argue the merger dilutes deterrence against reckless , yet empirical trends show reduced litigation harshness without evident spikes in activity-related claims, as proportional reductions align liability with causal contributions. State variations persist, with some retaining hybrid models to distinguish inherent risks, but the dominant trend favors merger for equitable, evidence-based .

Judicial Refinements and State Variations

Judicial refinements to the assumption of risk doctrine have primarily focused on distinguishing between primary and secondary forms of implied assumption, a framework articulated by legal scholars such as William Prosser and adopted in key appellate decisions to preserve the doctrine's core while aligning it with modern principles. In primary implied assumption of risk, courts hold that participants in inherently risky activities, such as , implicitly relieve defendants of any to protect against those inherent risks, resulting in no liability even if occurs; this was solidified in Knight v. Jewett (1992), where the barred recovery for a touch football , emphasizing that vigorous contact negate for inherent collisions. Secondary implied assumption, by contrast, involves a plaintiff's unreasonable encounter with a risk negligently created by the defendant, which courts typically fold into comparative fault analysis rather than treating as a complete bar, as seen in Perez v. McConkey (1994), where Tennessee's applied it to reduce proportionally in a waterslide case involving known but exacerbated hazards. Earlier refinements trace to v. Steeplechase Co. (1929), where New York's Court of Appeals, per Justice Cardozo, upheld inherent risks in amusement rides as assumed, barring recovery absent reckless conduct. State variations reflect a patchwork influenced by the adoption of comparative negligence statutes, with approximately 46 states employing some form of comparative fault by 2024, often subsuming secondary implied assumption while retaining primary in recreational contexts. California maintains a robust distinction, applying primary assumption to bar claims in co-participant sports and noncontact activities like golf, as extended in Avila v. Citrus Valley Medical Center (2006), but subjecting secondary forms to comparative allocation under Civil Code § 1714. In contrast, Kansas statutorily abolished common law assumption of risk as a separate defense in 1988 via its comparative negligence regime (K.S.A. § 60-258a), treating all voluntary risk encounters as fault apportionment factors rather than absolute bars. Oklahoma similarly differentiates primary (no duty for inherent risks) from secondary (comparative reduction), per Thomas v. Holliday (1988), applying primary to school sports injuries. States like Georgia retain express assumption via waivers but limit implied forms in employer-employee contexts, while pure comparative jurisdictions such as Florida integrate both into percentage-based liability without abolishing the doctrine outright. These divergences stem from legislative reforms post-1970s, with primary assumption persisting where courts prioritize activity encouragement over uniform liability, though critics note inconsistent application across borders.

Persistence and Recent Case Law Applications

Despite the integration of secondary implied assumption of risk into comparative fault frameworks in many states, express assumption of risk and primary implied assumption of risk endure as absolute bars to recovery in jurisdictions including New York, , and , particularly to safeguard operators and participants in inherently risky endeavors from liability for foreseeable, integral hazards. This retention reflects judicial recognition that imposing duties to eliminate inherent risks would chill recreational pursuits, as affirmed in longstanding precedents extended into recent rulings. In sports contexts, courts have repeatedly invoked primary assumption of risk to dismiss claims. On April 15, 2025, the in Maharaj v. City of New York granted to defendants where a , playing on a city park , tripped into a on the uneven surface, sustaining ; the majority held that surface irregularities represent inherent risks voluntarily assumed by participants in , distinguishing them from negligently heightened dangers. A dissent contended the stemmed from years of maintenance neglect, arguing the doctrine should not absolve premises owners of basic safety duties, yet the holding underscores the principle's robustness in athletic settings. California courts similarly applied the doctrine in Gee v. NCAA (2025), where the Second District Court of Appeal barred a claim for injuries sustained during college football, deeming physical contact and related harms intrinsic to the sport and thus assumed by the player, thereby no duty breach occurred. This aligns with the state's Knight v. Jewett framework, perpetuating primary assumption as a shield against ordinary play risks in competitive athletics. Beyond sports, the defense persists in premises and general scenarios involving voluntary exposure to known perils. The Court of Appeals on September 16, 2025, in Mamaed v. Ev-Air-Tight, Shoemaker Inc., upheld a trial court's assumption of risk instruction after a tripped over in a garage despite prior awareness of the cluttered, hazardous conditions; sufficient evidence showed voluntary proceeding without precautions, justifying the defense's submission to jurors. Such applications demonstrate the doctrine's adaptability, though non-participants like delivery drivers in sports venues have successfully resisted it, as in a 2025 ruling excluding the defense for involuntary bystanders. These cases affirm ongoing judicial reliance on assumption of risk to allocate responsibility based on conduct, resisting full subsumption into systems.

Controversies, Criticisms, and Defenses

Arguments Supporting the Doctrine's Retention

Proponents argue that the assumption of risk doctrine upholds individual by enforcing the consequences of informed, voluntary choices to encounter known hazards, thereby preventing from retroactively disclaiming risks they knowingly accepted. Legal scholars emphasize that this basis preserves personal agency, as "when one agrees to something, they're stuck with it," aligning with principles of that bar recovery when a explicitly or impliedly waives liability for foreseeable harms. In scenarios of "full preference," where the prefers the risky conduct over safer alternatives—such as urging a driver to exceed speed limits—the doctrine rightly prioritizes the 's deliberate preference, irrespective of reasonableness, to respect autonomous decision-making. The doctrine also offers forensic and administrative advantages by providing a straightforward that streamlines , avoiding the need for exhaustive analyses in cases where the plaintiff deliberately subjected themselves to danger. This efficiency enables courts to achieve correct outcomes rapidly, serving as a flexible tool for judges and juries to allocate responsibility without undue complexity. By distinguishing voluntary risk assumption from mere , it maintains doctrinal clarity, ensuring that consent-based waivers—such as in "victim insistence" cases, where a demands a risky interaction like riding with an impaired driver—do not dissolve into broader fault schemes. Retention is further justified on policy grounds, as abolishing the doctrine could deter socially beneficial activities by imposing undue liability on defendants for inherent risks, particularly in recreational and contexts. Under primary assumption of risk, defendants owe no for injuries from core perils of the activity, as affirmed in cases like Nalwa v. (2012), where the extended this to non-sport recreation like rides to encourage participation without fear of excessive suits. This preserves incentives for risk-taking that yield public goods, such as emergency aid or provision, by shielding voluntary encounters from liability and promoting overall autonomy in pursuing hazardous yet valuable endeavors.

Critiques Regarding Equity and Overreach

Critics contend that the assumption of risk doctrine produces inequitable outcomes by imposing an absolute bar to recovery, irrespective of the defendant's degree of , thereby disregarding proportional fault allocation. This all-or-nothing approach contrasts sharply with systems, which apportion based on relative , and has been described as leading to "illogical and grossly inequitable" results where s suffer total loss for injuries partially attributable to defendants. In particular, the doctrine's reliance on subjective plaintiff knowledge creates evidentiary challenges, often favoring defendants with superior resources to contest , thus exacerbating imbalances in litigation capabilities. Further equity concerns arise in scenarios involving economic compulsion, such as hazardous or activities with waivers, where participants lack genuine voluntariness due to necessity or unequal . For instance, historical applications in employer-employee relations barred worker claims despite limited job alternatives, a practice now largely supplanted by statutes but illustrative of the doctrine's potential to entrench power disparities. In recreational contexts, critics argue it disproportionately disadvantages novices, minors, or economically vulnerable individuals who may underestimate without full information, rendering the "voluntary" assumption illusory and perpetuating unfair denial of redress. Regarding overreach, detractors assert that the distinction between primary (no-duty) and secondary (fault-apportioning) assumption of risk is often manipulable, allowing courts to expansively shield defendants from for conduct exceeding inherent risks, such as reckless enhancements in or premises activities. This broad invocation, particularly in primary assumption cases, has been criticized as an "encumbrance" on law, insulating parties from accountability for preventable harms and blurring lines with . For example, in athletic settings, application to bar claims against organizers for inadequate measures—beyond mere inherent perils—has prompted calls for abolition, arguing it overextends immunity and discourages due care. Such critiques highlight systemic risks of doctrinal creep, where subjective risk appreciation thresholds enable defendants to evade scrutiny, even absent empirical support for widespread chilling effects on activities.

Empirical Evidence on Societal Impacts

Empirical research directly assessing the societal impacts of the assumption of risk doctrine is limited, with few studies isolating its effects on litigation volumes, economic costs, outcomes, or activity participation. The doctrine's role in barring recovery for voluntarily assumed inherent risks theoretically promotes personal and reduces incentives for frivolous claims in high-risk domains like sports and , but quantitative validation remains elusive. Broader analyses, which sometimes incorporate liability limitations akin to assumption of risk, indicate modest reductions in premiums and defensive practices, yet these findings do not specifically attribute outcomes to the doctrine itself. A notable empirical investigation into express assumption of risk via parental liability waivers in examined data from 50 states between 1988 and 2014, including high school participation rates from the National Federation of State High School Associations and waiver enforceability surveys. Regression analyses revealed no statistically significant relationship between enforcing such waivers and increased sports participation, challenging arguments that waiver invalidity deters youth involvement due to provider liability fears. This implies that liability concerns may not substantially suppress recreational engagement, or that waivers serve other functions, such as streamlining , without broadly expanding access to activities. Regarding safety and behavioral impacts, no peer-reviewed studies directly link the doctrine to altered accident rates or risk-taking patterns. Theoretical defenses posit that by allocating costs to participants who knowingly engage in risky pursuits, assumption of risk encourages informed decision-making without externalizing harms, potentially fostering safer self-regulation in voluntary contexts. However, analogous research on in occupational settings shows that heightened awareness of personal liability correlates with improved compliance, though causal ties to legal doctrines like assumption of risk are unestablished. In employment contexts historically, the doctrine's partial displacement by no-fault systems correlated with elevated claim frequencies, suggesting retention of assumption of risk in non-compensatory regimes may curb over-litigation of foreseeable injuries. Economically, the doctrine's persistence in jurisdictions applying primary assumption of risk to has coincided with sustained participation in contact activities, averting scenarios where unchecked liability might inflate operational costs and exclude lower-income providers or participants. system cost assessments estimate annual U.S. expenditures exceeding $400 billion, with defenses like assumption of contributing to efficient risk allocation by precluding suits over inherent perils, though precise attribution requires further econometric modeling. Overall, while direct causal is scant, available data do not indicate adverse societal effects and support the doctrine's utility in preserving access to voluntary risks without disproportionate litigation burdens.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assumption_of_risk
  2. https://www.findlaw.com/injury/accident-injury-law/assumption-of-risk-defense.html
  3. https://digitalcommons.csp.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1081&context=lawfaculty
  4. https://porcarolaw.com/assumption-of-risk-complete-guide-to-understanding-this-critical-legal-defense/
  5. https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/32_50UCLALRev4812002-2003.pdf
  6. https://www.justia.com/injury/negligence-theory/assumption-of-risk/
  7. https://attorneysheehan.com/understanding-assumption-of-the-risk/
  8. https://www.thewilsonpc.com/glossary/what-is-assumption-of-risk/
  9. https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/assumption-risk-california-not-simple-it-sounds
  10. https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/c65db806-7e35-4985-b350-19a51f062931/file
  11. https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=5847&context=nclr
  12. https://www.lexplug.com/topics/defenses-to-negligence/assumption-of-risk
  13. https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1766&context=dlra
  14. https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1354&context=lawreview
  15. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3995&context=mlr
  16. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/context/lalrev/article/2956/viewcontent/13_22LaLRev122_1961_1962_.pdf
  17. https://www.richmondvona.com/blog/understanding-personal-injury-law-what-is-assumption-of-risk/
  18. https://www.pastpaperhero.com/resources/ncbe-mbe-negligence-assumption-of-risk
  19. https://lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontentview/negligence-defenses-contributory-negligence-and-assumption-of-risk
  20. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3591&context=wlulr
  21. https://attorneyjeff.com/primary-and-secondary-assumption-of-risk-within-california-doctrine/
  22. https://www.thekirklawfirm.com/is-contributory-negligence-differently-from-assumption-of-the-risk-in-a-baltimore-personal-injury-case/
  23. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3939&context=mulr
  24. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6286&context=mlr
  25. https://www.justia.com/injury/negligence-theory/strict-liability/
  26. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4735&context=lalrev
  27. https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2500&context=luclj
  28. https://repository.law.uic.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2475&context=lawreview
  29. https://www.cozen.com/subrogation/resources/publications/defenses-in-a-product-liability-claim-subrogation-and-recovery-theories-of-liability---subrogation-and-recovery---articles-and-papers
  30. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/volenti_non_fit_injuria
  31. https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/VOLENTI-NON-FIT-INJURIA-DAMAGE-SUFFERED-BY-CONSENT-IS-NOT-A-CAUSE-OF-ACTION.pdf
  32. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=143488
  33. https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3601&context=smulr
  34. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/4C62EE44B997FB2609C582ECEB312EC7/S0008197322000915a.pdf/rethinking_risktaking_the_death_of_volenti.pdf
  35. https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2008/3/Stein.pdf
  36. https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=lawreview
  37. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1580&context=mlr
  38. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/20.500.13051/16097/2/84_90YaleLJ1717_July1981_.pdf
  39. https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3138&context=nclr
  40. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1445&context=aulr
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1888620/
  42. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/history-of-workplace-safety-in-the-united-states-1880-1970-2/
  43. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/20.500.13051/3447/2/Transformation_of_Work_and_the_Law_of_Workplace_Accidents__1842_1910__The.pdf
  44. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/2001-R-0261.htm
  45. https://www.thehartford.com/workers-compensation/history
  46. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/aba_journal_of_labor_employment_law/v32/v32n2/haughton.pdf
  47. https://legal-resources.uslegalforms.com/e/express-assumption-of-risk
  48. https://www.dressielaw.com/what-is-assumption-of-the-risk/
  49. https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/I2c83cab1e10d11dab058a118868d70a9?transitionType=Default
  50. https://martinwrenlaw.com/blog/defenses-in-negligence-actions-part-iii-assumption-of-risk/
  51. https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/I2c83a3ade10d11dab058a118868d70a9?transitionType=Default
  52. https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol28/iss2/9/
  53. https://www.askadamskutner.com/las-vegas-personal-injury-lawyers/know-assumption-risk-personal-injury/
  54. https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/knight-v-jewett-31380
  55. https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1345&context=sports_entertainment
  56. https://www.johndaylegal.com/resources-for-tort-attorneys/day-on-torts-leading-cases-in-tennessee-tort-law/chapter-7-assumption-of-risk/7-1-generally/
  57. https://cardozoaelj.com/2023/11/14/torts-in-sports-exploring-the-boundaries-of-assumption-of-risk/
  58. https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/373233-implied-assumption-of-risk-in-sports-activities
  59. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/9486-torts-basic-fluency-in-a-fundamental-legal-language-revised/resources/4.2.2.5.1-knight-v-jewett-the-touch-football-game-case/
  60. https://www.dailyjournal.com/mcle/1285-implied-assumption-of-risk-in-sports-activities
  61. https://mdafny.com/index.aspx?TypeContent=CUSTOMPAGEARTICLE&custom_pages_articlesID=22566
  62. https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/personal-injury/what-is-the-assumption-of-the-risk-doctrine.html
  63. https://www.collinsattorneys.com/dangerous-recreational-activit/
  64. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1247&context=iplj
  65. https://www.insurancejournal.com/blogs/academy-journal/2015/03/19/360273.htm
  66. https://www.pieinsurance.com/blog/workers-comp/the-fascinating-history-of-workers-compensation-insurance
  67. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w5840/w5840.pdf
  68. https://www.bourne.law/workers-compensation/articles/how-workers-comp-works/
  69. https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-52/article-1/section-52-1-8/
  70. https://www.mintzlawfirm.com/can-assumption-of-risk-impact-my-workplace-injury-claim/
  71. https://www.veenfirm.com/news-events/publications/the-5-exceptions-to-the-workers-compensation/
  72. https://brienrochelaw.com/tort-law/tort-case-law/a/assumption-of-risk-2/
  73. https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2022-march/don-t-trip-over-these-common-premises-liability-defenses
  74. https://ellisinjurylaw.com/faq/what-is-the-assumption-of-risk-in-premises-liability/
  75. https://www.pwdlawfirm.com/when-can-a-property-owner-use-the-assumption-of-risk-defense-in-premises-liability-cases/
  76. https://oleenlawfirm.com/blog/common-defenses-to-premises-liability-claims/
  77. https://www.hpylaw.com/content/uploads/2017/04/83_Levinson-and-Barfield-GDLA-Summer-2012-Newsletter-Assumption-of-the-Risk-Alive-and-Well-in-Premises-Liability-Actions-in-GA.pdf
  78. https://cpollardlaw.com/personal-injury-attorney-virginia/assumption-of-risk-defense/
  79. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2020&context=facpub
  80. https://dc.law.mc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1201&context=lawreview
  81. https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/li-v-yellow-cab-co-27850
  82. https://dsc.duq.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2049&context=dlr
  83. https://www.justia.com/injury/negligence-theory/comparative-contributory-negligence-laws-50-state-survey/
  84. https://www.sloanlawfirm.com/assumption-of-risk-personal-injury-cases/
  85. https://law.justia.com/cases/tennessee/supreme-court/1994/872-s-w-2d-897-2.html
  86. https://www.bakersterchi.com/kansas-abolishes-assumption-of-the-risk-defense
  87. https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/1988/10430.html
  88. https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2025/Apr25/34mem25-Decision.pdf
  89. https://sportslitigationalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/SLA-2025-5-16.pdf
  90. https://valawyersweekly.com/2025/09/28/negligence-jury-was-properly-instructed-on-assumption-of-risk-defense/
  91. https://sportslitigationalert.com/court-assumption-of-risk-doctrine-does-not-apply-to-delivery-driver-in-sports-law-case/
  92. https://nysappeals.com/2025/05/02/nysba-caseprepplus-newsletter-4-25-25-court-of-appeals-clarifies-limits-on-assumption-of-the-risk-doctrine/
  93. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2951&context=lalrev
  94. https://blogs.duanemorris.com/sportslaw/2013/01/09/the-california-supreme-court-makes-clear-assumption-of-risk-applies-to-more-than-just-sports/
  95. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2778&context=mulr
  96. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2555&context=wvlr
  97. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/527332
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6606555/
  99. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3740176
  100. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753525000360
  101. https://instituteforlegalreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Tort-Costs-in-America-An-Empirical-Assessment-of-Costs-and-Compensation-of-the-U.S.-Tort-System.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.