In Pennsylvania personal injury law, the “assumption of risk” doctrine can significantly impact your ability to recover compensation after an accident. This legal principle holds that if you knowingly and voluntarily expose yourself to a dangerous situation or activity with full understanding of the potential risks involved, you may be barred from recovering damages for resulting injuries. While this defense isn’t applicable in every personal injury case, understanding how it works can help you navigate the complexities of your claim and protect your right to compensation.
At Rubin, Glickman, Steinberg & Gifford, P.C., our talented attorneys have over 65 years of experience helping injured clients throughout Montgomery and Bucks counties. We understand how insurance companies and defendants use defenses like assumption of risk to minimize or eliminate their liability, and we work diligently to challenge these arguments and fight for the full compensation our clients deserve.
Understanding the Assumption of Risk Doctrine in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania recognizes two types of assumption of risk: express and implied. Each type applies to different circumstances and can affect your personal injury claim in distinct ways.
Express Assumption of Risk
Express assumption of risk occurs when you formally acknowledge and accept potential dangers before participating in an activity. This typically involves signing a waiver or release form.
Examples of situations involving express assumption of risk include:
- Signing a liability waiver before participating in a skydiving experience
- Agreeing to a release form before entering an amusement park ride
- Consenting to a liability waiver before joining a gym or fitness center
- Signing a permission slip for your child to participate in a school sports program
Even with signed waivers, not all express assumption of risk defenses will succeed. Pennsylvania courts may invalidate waivers that are unclear, overly broad, or against public policy. Additionally, waivers cannot protect parties from liability for gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct.
Implied Assumption of Risk
Implied assumption of risk occurs when your voluntary participation in an activity demonstrates your awareness and acceptance of its inherent risks, even without a signed document.
For example, if you choose to play in a recreational softball game, Pennsylvania law presumes you understand and accept the inherent risk of being hit by a ball during normal gameplay. Similarly, spectators at baseball games are generally presumed to understand the risk of foul balls entering the stands.
However, the implied assumption of risk only applies to dangers that are obvious and inherent to the activity. If an injury results from a hidden danger or a risk beyond what would be reasonably anticipated, this defense may not apply.
How Pennsylvania’s Comparative Negligence Affects Assumption of Risk
Pennsylvania’s approach to assumption of risk has evolved considerably with the adoption of comparative negligence principles. Under the state’s comparative negligence system, your recovery may be reduced by your percentage of fault, but you can still receive compensation as long as you’re not more than 50% responsible for your injuries.
This means that even if you partially assumed some risk, you may still be entitled to compensation if:
- You were less than 51% responsible for your injuries
- The defendant’s negligence created risks beyond those inherent to the activity
- The risks were not obvious, or you lacked a full understanding of their nature
- The defendant’s actions constituted gross negligence or recklessness
Each case varies, and a dedicated personal injury lawyer can help you understand the specifics of your situation.
Challenging Assumption of Risk Defenses
When facing an assumption of risk defense, our attorneys employ several strategies to protect your right to compensation.
Proving Lack of Knowledge or Voluntariness
For the assumption of risk doctrine to apply, you must have both known about and voluntarily accepted the specific risk that caused your injury. If you can demonstrate that you were unaware of particular dangers or were somehow compelled to participate, this defense may fail.
For instance, if you signed a waiver to use gym equipment that later malfunctioned due to poor maintenance, you likely did not assume the risk of using defective equipment. Similarly, if workplace conditions forced you to engage in risky behavior, the voluntary element may be lacking.
Demonstrating Enhanced or Hidden Risks
The assumption of risk doctrine only applies to dangers inherent and obvious in an activity. If we can show that the defendant’s negligence created additional risks beyond what you could reasonably anticipate, this defense may be overcome.
For example, while skiing carries inherent risks of falling, you do not assume the risk of being injured by improperly maintained equipment or unmarked hazards that the ski resort should have addressed.
Contact Our Pennsylvania Personal Injury Attorneys
Understanding how the “assumption of risk” doctrine may affect your personal injury claim requires knowledgeable legal guidance. At Rubin, Glickman, Steinberg & Gifford, P.C., our attorneys have the depth of understanding and litigation strength needed to challenge these complex defenses.
With a tradition of excellence spanning over six decades, we provide the personalized attention and powerful advocacy you need to pursue fair compensation. Contact us today at (215) 822-7575 or through our contact form for a confidential consultation.
