Did You Assume The Risk Of Your Own Accident Or Injury?

Even if you’re not a lawyer, you probably get what assumption of risk means. As the name implies, it suggests that you, as the accident victim, accepted the known risks of a particular activity, and thus, can’t be compensated when you’re injured by doing that activity.

Assumption of Risk requires that a victim understand and accept, either expressly (such as with a written waiver or disclaimer), or impliedly (such as just taking part in a given activity), the inherent risks in an activity.

But as you might imagine, victims and defendants who are sued for compensation by those victims, often have differing opinions of what assumption of risk is, and when it applies.

What is an Inherent Risk?

One of the big arguments when the defense is used, is what risk is actually inherent in an activity. That is, what kind of accident or injury, is one that the victim could have and should have anticipated and appreciated, before engaging in the activity?

As an example, imagine a high school basketball player who collapses because of exhaustion during a practice or game. Being exhausted–even possibly, so exhausted, that the player collapses–is a possible risk of playing basketball, or any physically exerting sport. The player could likely not sue for these injuries.

On the other hand, being injured on the court because a piece of the hardwood floor is sticking up, and is in disrepair, is not an inherent, known risk of playing basketball. That is, while exhaustion is something you would expect to happen playing basketball, a defective court with warped wood that causes injury, is not.

The victim also must assume the risk, in an activity where there is some inherent risk to be assumed. So, for example, although we all know that accidents do happen in cars, and that you always risk being in an accident anytime you take the wheel, that does not mean that every driver assumes the risk of being in a car accident, and thus, cannot sue. A car accident is not an expected and natural consequence of driving a car, even if car accidents are relatively common.

Relationship to Comparative Negligence

Assumption of risk is often confused with comparative negligence, and they are similar. But unlike comparative negligence, which looks at what the victim did negligently that may have caused his or her own accident or injuries, with assumption of risk, the victim need not do anything negligent or careless.

So, in our basketball example above, the player who collapsed because of exhaustion, did nothing careless, or frivolous, to cause his or her own injury. The victim is blameless–all the victim did was play basketball, and expose him or herself to a risk of playing that sport.

Liability Waivers

Many Defendants in certain situations, will have people try to sign liability waivers, which prevent the victim from suing if they are injured while voluntarily exposing themselves to a dangerous activity.

These liability waivers can be, but are not always, valid or binding. The waiver must be clear, must spell out what risks the victim is waiving the right to sue for, and must be clearly written (that is, not buried in a tiny font in some larger agreement).

What defense will the other side use in your injury case?  Contact our Rhode Island injury lawyers at Robert E. Craven & Associates.

Source:

web.uri.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1393/Assumption-of-Risk-Release-of-Liability-covid.pdf