ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE

Assumption of Risk Doctrine is a defense which the defendant takes against the Plaintiff’s claim for recovery of damages as a result of defendant’s negligence. After going into the facts and circumstances of each case, the Judge is the one who generally determines the validity of such defense – in other words will the defendant be allowed to assert the defense against the plaintiff.

The assumption of risk doctrine applies (if the Judge allows the defense) when the defendant asserts that the plaintiff who is injured is not entitled to recover their losses (even though the defendant was negligent) because the plaintiff deliberately and voluntarily engaged in such a dangerous activity and “assumed the risk” of such injury. When someone is injured while participating in sports or recreational activities, assumption of risk is commonly asserted as a defense by the defendant.

For example, if you go out to watch a baseball game you may voluntarily accept the risk of sitting there and getting hurt from a foul ball (although there are exceptions such as did the defendant make a reasonable attempt to protect fans from foul balls). The idea is that you cannot blame the defendant for that later on because you have agreed to face such risk while purchasing your tickets and attending the game.

ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE: WHAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DOCTRINE?

However, this does not mean that a defendant engaged in sporting or recreational activities can impose any sort of measures and escape from its liability resorting to assumption of the risk doctrine. It cannot be taken as a defense in following cases: –

If the defendant intentionally causes harm to the plaintiff;
Where the defendant acted recklessly and negligently discounting the safety of others. simply because it is a sporting or recreational activities does not give defendant a free pass to abuse others at no cost;
The damage occurred as a result of behaviour that went beyond what one could reasonably expect during an athletic, recreational, or other activity.

CATEGORIES OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK

According to the circumstances of a particular case, the assumption of risk defense in California is categorized into two categories – primary assumption of risk and secondary assumption of risk. This distinction can be very complicated and quit confusing even to an inexperienced attorney.

A primary risk assumption is something that is so intrinsic to an activity that restricting it would ruin the essence of the whole activity. The potential of being struck by a fly ball during a baseball game is the classic example of primary assumption of risk. This allows baseball parks, teams, and players to avoid liability for injuries caused by flying baseballs.

On the other hand, secondary assumption of risk allows the plaintiff to recover losses in proportion to their negligence. For example, you visited a theme park and you wanted to go for a ride which showed the sign of ‘not working reliably’ but still you chose to go for it and later suffered injuries. You voluntarily accepted the risk of injury from a ride with a known flaw, but the theme park operator had a responsibility to not run rides with known safety hazards. Here, both the parties were irresponsible in their action. Your proportion of negligence will be reduced, allowing you to claim your monetary damages.

CONCLUSION

As we discussed, if you want to take a defense under the assumption of risk doctrine or respond to such a defense, what remedies you have in such a case, reach out to me for a free case evaluation or answer any questions you may have in this regard.

Joe Lavelle

Mr. Lavelle has significant, successful jury trial experience and is responsible for more than $30 million in jury verdicts and settlements. His most recent trial and settlement victories include:

$10.8 million dollar jury verdict against Pizza Hut on behalf of a mother and daughter seriously injured by a pizza delivery driver.
$1.75 million insurance bad faith case
$1.75 million injury case in Old Town, San Diego
$1.6 million recovery for a young women struck by a transit vehicle

$1.3 million design defect premises case
$1.4 million semi-tractor trailer injury
$1.25 million taxicab injury
$1.6 million for an elderly auto accident victim
$900,000+ recovery for a non-profit in a business dispute
$795,000 for a taxicab related injury
$750,000.00 settlement in products liability case
$750,000.00 for a student injured on the U.C. Berkeley campus
$750,000+ for a family injured on the I-405 in Los Angeles
$695,000 for a women rear-ended by a Sheriff’s Deputy
$300,000.00+ jury verdict for client who fell and was injured on a city bus
$600,000+ jury verdict for a 73-year-old woman who fell in a fast-food restaurant
$600,000+ for a Las Vegas client injured in an automobile accident in Laguna, California
$600,000+ for a husband and wife who suffered food poisoning
$700,000+ for three customers of a nail salon who were injured while receiving pedicures (furunculosis infection)

Mr. Lavelle works hand in hand with clients, getting to know and understand how his clients’ injuries impact not only their lives, but the lives of their families. Mr. Lavelle’s extra effort has helped him be so successful in winning multi-million-dollar verdicts, awards, and settlements for his clients. Call us to help you with car accident, auto accident recovery, motor vehicle accident recovery in San Diego or California.