If a plaintiff has been injured while taking part in a risky activity, then the Personal Injury Lawyer in Truro for the defendant might claim an assumption of risk on the plaintiff’s part. If a defense lawyer has chosen to introduce that tactic, then the plaintiff’s personal injury attorney must try to stick some holes in the suggested defense.
How might an injury lawyer stick holes in such a defense?
That lawyer could ask questions such as this one: Was the plaintiff aware of the risks that were associated with his/her chosen activity?
If the answer to that question were “yes”, then it would be the lawyer’s job to learn how the plaintiff/client had obtained that awareness. That task would call for an inquiry into the nature of the plaintiff’s assumption.
Had the plaintiff acted despite awareness of an expressed risk or an implied risk?
Defendants could produce evidence of an expressed risk, if the plaintiff had signed a waiver, before taking part in the risky endeavor.
If someone were to purchase a ticket to an event, and the ticket contained some type of warning, then that could also count as evidence that the ticket-buyer had assumed an expressed risk.
Defendants could claim that the person that has submitted a personal injury claim had known what was common knowledge. In other words, he/she had realized the implied risk in the chosen activity.
Defendants do not have to present proof of an implied risk, if there is evidence that the plaintiff could be charged with comparative negligence. That would mean that the plaintiff’s actions had demonstrated a readiness to engage in careless and neglectful behavior.
Could the defense that relied on an assumption of risk be used in any personal injury case?
No, a defense lawyer would use that tactic if the client had been injured while taking part in an activity with recognized dangers. Injuries sustained by those participating in a sports activity are most apt to trigger the filing of the sort of claim that might be countered by allegations about an assumption of risk.
Suppose, though, that the injured participant had been urged to wear some type of protection, but had failed to do so. That failure might have increased his/her chances for becoming injured.
In other words, the participant had been a bit careless and neglectful. Hence he/she could be charged with comparative negligence. A good personal injury lawyer ought to know how to fight such a charge.
Fighting a charge of assumption of risk
Personal injury lawyers tend to fight that charge by claiming that the defendant had demonstrated gross negligence. A claim about a plaintiff’s assumption of risk could not be used to defend gross negligence.
