What is the “assumption of risk” defense in a sports injury case?

In a sports injury case, the “assumption of risk” defense is used to argue that the injured party knew of the potential risks of participating in a sport or activity and decided to engage in it anyway. This means that the injured party voluntarily assumed the inherent risks of the activity. In California, this type of defense is generally used by the defendant to show that they have no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from any injury they may suffer during the activity. The assumption of risk defense is divided into two categories: primary and secondary. For primary assumption of risk, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff had knowledge of the risk involved in the activity, appreciated the risk, and voluntarily assumed the risk. This type of defense can be used in cases of sports injuries which are caused by the inherent nature of the activity itself. Secondary assumption of risk applies in cases of injuries which are caused by others’ conduct. The defendant must prove that the plaintiff knew of the risk and voluntarily assumed the risk by participating in the activity with others. This defense usually applies to cases where the plaintiff was a participant in a team sport or activity and has been injured by the actions of another teammate or player. The assumption of risk defense can be difficult to prove since it requires that a defendant show that the plaintiff was aware of the risks and still chose to engage in the activity. It is important for defendants and plaintiffs alike to understand this defense and its implications for sports injury cases in California.

What is the “assumption of risk” defense in a sports injury case?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts