What Is Assumption Of Risk in Torts?

Assumption of risk is a legal doctrine in tort law whereby a plaintiff may not recover for injuries sustained from risks they knowingly accepted. It is often invoked in cases involving recreational activities or inherent risks associated with certain conduct.

Assumption of risk is a defense in tort law, which asserts that a plaintiff may be barred from recovering damages if they knowingly engage in a risky activity that results in injury. This doctrine applies when a person is aware of a particular risk, voluntarily chooses to encounter it, and as a result, cannot claim compensation for any resulting harm. The assumption can be expressed, where the plaintiff explicitly agrees to waive liability, or implied, where the circumstances indicate that the plaintiff accepted the risk by their conduct.

The doctrine is classified into two main categories: primary assumption of risk and secondary assumption of risk. Primary assumption of risk occurs when the defendant owes no duty to protect the plaintiff from the particular risk; this often arises in cases such as contact sports. Secondary assumption of risk involves situations where the defendant breaches a duty of care, but the plaintiff knowingly exposes themselves to that risk, potentially limiting liability.

Judicial interpretation of the assumption of risk doctrine includes considerations of public policy, especially in cases involving essential activities (like medical services) or when a person acts under compulsion or duress. Courts often weigh the nature of the activity, the severity of the risk, and the plaintiff’s knowledge and understanding of that risk when adjudicating related claims.

Overall, understanding the nuances of assumption of risk is key for tort law practitioners, as the applicability can vary significantly based on jurisdiction and the specifics of the case. Defendants may successfully assert this defense, highlighting the importance of informed consent in tortious actions.

• 1Tunkl v. Regents of University of California (1963) - established guidelines for enforceability of waivers in the context of public interest.
• 2Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co. (1929) - recognized the implicit acceptance of risks inherent to roller coaster rides.
• 3Adams v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. (2017) - demonstrated secondary assumption of risk where a plaintiff ignored warnings.
• 4Bard v. Jahnke (2005) - addressed primary assumption of risk in equestrian activities, focusing on inherent sport risks.

• what-is-negligence-torts
• what-are-defenses-in-torts
• understanding-contributory-negligence