Assumption Of Risk: Tennessee vs. Kentucky

In Tennessee, the doctrine of assumption of risk is recognized and applied predominantly in the context of negligence cases. The courts in Tennessee have established that an individual may be deemed to have assumed the risk of injury if they voluntarily engage in an activity that is inherently dangerous and fully aware of the risks involved. Notably, in the case of Henson v. City of Nashville, the Tennessee Supreme Court highlighted that assumption of risk can act as a complete bar to recovery if the plaintiff knowingly exposed themselves to known dangers associated with the activity.

Kentucky also embraces the doctrine of assumption of risk, but with nuanced differences in its application. In Kentucky, courts have adopted a comparative negligence approach that allows for damages even in cases where assumption of risk is present, provided that the plaintiff's level of fault can be established. This means a plaintiff may still recover damages, albeit reduced by their percentage of fault in assuming the risk. The case of Stokes v. Smith serves as a prime example, as it illustrates how the court weighs a plaintiff's knowledge of risk against the defendant's negligence when determining liability.