Under traditional common-law tort principles, a defendant who raises the affirmative defense of assumption of risk bears the burden of proving certain elements. Which of the following best states what the defendant must establish to succeed on that defense?
The plaintiff actually knew of the specific danger and voluntarily chose to confront it.
The plaintiff signed a waiver purporting to absolve the defendant of liability for intentional or reckless misconduct.
The plaintiff merely should have known of the danger and proceeded unreasonably.
The defense applies only when the defendant's liability would otherwise rest on strict-liability principles, not negligence.
The defense of assumption of risk succeeds only if the defendant shows that the plaintiff (1) had actual, subjective knowledge of the specific risk that resulted in the injury and (2) voluntarily chose to confront that risk. The required consent may be express (for example, by signing a waiver) or implied from the plaintiff's conduct. When proved, the defense is a complete bar to recovery for harm that falls within the risk assumed and applies even if the defendant's conduct was negligent or reckless. It does not, however, bar claims for intentional torts unless the plaintiff actually consented to the intentional contact. The other options misstate the doctrine: merely "should have known" of the danger is the standard for contributory negligence, not assumption of risk; the defense is not limited to strict-liability activities; and public policy generally prevents waivers from excusing intentional or reckless misconduct.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does 'assumption of risk' mean in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How can a plaintiff show they did not assume the risk?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the limits of the assumption of risk defense?