When filing a civil lawsuit for someone else’s wrongdoing and negligent acts, you focus on legal protocols, statements, arguments, evidence, and just about everything. However, there’s one more factor that decides the future of your personal injury claim and whether it’s worth pursuing. Assumption of risk, if you have been injured due to a workplace accident, nursing home abuse, or any other unforeseen events, takes a huge toll on your case. It’s a defense mechanism the defendant uses to claim that the plaintiff was aware of the risk of getting injured. It impacts your ability to pursue your claim and the amount awarded to reimburse your losses.
Surely there’s a way out. If you have been involved in a car crash causing serious damage and plan to file a legal claim, consult a renowned Des Moines car accident lawyer to evaluate and increase your chances while considering the ‘assumption of risk’ factor.
What is Assumption of Risk?
Assumption of risk is more like a belief and legal doctrine that opposing counsel introduces to prevent you from proceeding with your personal injury lawsuit. In this, the defendant claims that the victim knew about and was aware of the risk factors that could result in injury and exposed themselves to the possibility of injury and should therefore be held accountable. If that is proven, you may not be able to recover any or all of your losses.
How Does Assumption of Risk Work and Affect Personal Injury Claims?
Most often, sports and adventurous activities are inherently dangerous by nature. If you go to a football field, you risk getting hit; if you go bungee jumping, you agree to the possibility of fatal injuries.
This implies that when an activity inherently involves danger, participating in it means you accept the underlying risk. Since you consented to engage in these activities and granted your permission then it becomes more difficult and sometimes impossible to hold the other party accountable.
For instance, if someone is driving on the wrong side or the opposite side of the road and gets hit by a car, the assumption of risk can be used to demonstrate that you were engaged in an action that could harm you in a specific way leading to an injury. As a result, your chances of getting compensation and your claim may be reduced.
It applies only to damage and dangers one can foresee while undertaking a task. For example, if you go bungee jumping and the rope is not secured properly due to human error, or if you go rock climbing and fall because of broken tiles attached to the wall, the injuries are not assumed and occurred due to someone’s negligence. Hence, they can be sued for the same.
Comparative Negligence and Assumption of Risk:
In many states of the USA and other countries, the old legal doctrine of assumption of risk has been replaced with the tort principle of comparative negligence in circumstances where the assumption of risk was previously used.
Comparative negligence refers to situations where an injury is caused by the implicit actions of both parties. Rather than indicating the assumption of risk, the opposing counsel argues that the plaintiff was negligent for ignoring safety and was partially at fault for causing the injury.
This works in favor of the plaintiff, as it allows them to recover their losses even if they were partially at fault. The victim must prove that their comparative negligence, i.e., contributing factors, was less than the defendant. You need to show that you were at 40% or below 50% at fault, whereas the individual who caused the injury was at 60% at fault, entitling you to compensation.
Not all states have applied this principle. You must contact your attorney to determine which rules apply in your locality and how you can maximize your chances of compensation.
