If you were injured in an accident while participating in a recreational or sporting activity, you may encounter a legal defense known as assumption of risk. This defense argues that you knew an activity was dangerous and accepted the possibility of injury when you chose to participate.
To succeed with this defense, the defendant generally must show three things:
- You knew about the specific risk involved.
- You understood the nature and severity of that risk.
- You voluntarily chose to encounter the risk anyway.
However, knowing that an activity carries some general danger is not the same as knowingly accepting the specific hazard that caused your injury.
When Does Assumption of Risk Apply?
The assumption of risk doctrine commonly arises in cases involving:
- Contact sports injuries (football, hockey, rugby, boxing, etc.)
- Recreational sports injuries
- Skiing and snowboarding accidents
- Snowmobile collisions
- Water skiing accidents
- Boating accidents
- Rock climbing injuries
- ATV and off-road vehicle accidents
- Horseback riding accidents
- Rodeo injuries
- Skydiving accidents
- Bungee jumping accidents
- Amusement park ride accidents
While assumption of risk may apply in these situations, the defense is not automatic. Whether it succeeds depends on the specific facts of the case and the nature of the risk that led to the injury.
Primary vs. Secondary Assumption of Risk in Minnesota
Minnesota law divides the assumption of risk doctrine into two distinct categories.
Primary assumption of risk applies to a narrow class of activities with well-known, inherent dangers. Recreational activities like skiing, hockey, and other contact sports are common examples. When primary assumption of risk applies, the defendant owes no duty to protect you from the inherent risks of the activity. Minnesota courts apply this doctrine sparingly, and it does not excuse reckless conduct or hidden dangers that go beyond the inherent risks of the activity.
Secondary assumption of risk arises when a defendant created a danger through negligence and the injured person unreasonably chose to encounter it. Under Minnesota law, secondary assumption of risk is not a complete bar to recovery. Instead, it is based on the state’s comparative fault analysis. The jury will weigh the injured victim’s conduct against the defendant’s and assign percentages of fault based on the parties’ conduct.
How Comparative Fault Affects Your Recovery
Minnesota follows a modified comparative fault rule. You may recover compensation as long as your share of fault does not exceed the defendant’s. However, your award will be reduced by your percentage of responsibility.
For example, if your damages total $110,000 and a jury finds you 10% at fault for interacting with a known hazard, your recovery would be reduced to $100,000. If your fault exceeds 51%, you cannot recover anything.
Waivers and Assumption of Risk
Insurance companies raise assumption of risk in cases where it’s not applicable. Signing a liability waiver does not automatically forfeit your rights. Waivers are not always enforceable.
For instance, property owners cannot disclaim their duties to keep their premises reasonably safe for visitors. Likewise, no one assumes the risk of another party’s recklessness.
Whether you assumed the risk is based on the specific facts of the case, not any waivers or disclaimers.
Contact a Minneapolis Personal Injury Lawyer at Hall Law Personal Injury Attorneys for a Free Consultation
If an insurance company is arguing that you assumed the risk of your own injury, you may be at risk of recovering reduced compensation. If the defense raises your level of fault too much, you might not be able to recover anything.
You should contact an experienced attorney for help challenging an assumption of risk defense. Your attorney can investigate the facts of your case and show that you didn’t understand the risks of an activity, or that the defendant created new risks that you never consented to.
For more information, please contact an experienced personal injury lawyer at Hall Law Personal Injury Attorneys to schedule a free initial consultation today. We have three convenient locations in Minnesota, including Minneapolis, St. Cloud, and Edina.
We proudly serve Hennepin County, Stearns County, and their surrounding areas:
Hall Law Personal Injury Attorneys – Minneapolis
825 Nicollet Mall, Suite 615, Minneapolis, MN 55402
(800) 292-1979
Find us with our GeoCoordinates: 44.97514068188609, -93.27349979814521
Hall Law Personal Injury Attorneys – St. Cloud
1010 W St Germain St # 320, St Cloud, MN 56301
(320) 255-1000
Find us with our GeoCoordinates: 45.55903612908877, -94.16420517306956
Hall Law Personal Injury Attorneys – Edina
5200 Willson Rd #203, Edina, MN 55424
(952) 697-5560
Find us with our GeoCoordinates: 44.90963991439301, -93.34937342327198