Niagara Falls, New York, Personal Injury Lawyers Explain The Assumption Of Risk

Niagara Falls Personal Injury: What Is Assumption of Risk?

Calling the Dietrich Law Firm P.C. After Your Niagara Falls, New York Accident Will Help You Obtain the Highest Possible Compensation for Your Injuries.

Personal Injury AttorneysThe assumption of risk is a common legal doctrine that prevents the victim from holding a defendant responsible for damages if they were informed of and completely accepted the risks of undertaking a certain activity. Depending on the unique circumstances surrounding the accident, a defendant may be able to escape liability for the victim’s injuries by asserting the assumption of risk defense. In other words, the defense could bar the victim from obtaining compensation for their injuries. The Court will review the specific facts of the case to determine if the victim assumed the risk of the activity that resulted in the injury. For instance, skydiving would be considered an inherently dangerous activity with a high risk of suffering an accident. Even though it is unsafe, someone may still choose to enroll in skydiving classes. But imagine a student crashes into Niagara Falls and drowns because the instructor improperly packed his parachute. Despite the student’s assumption of risk, the Dietrich Law Firm P.C.’s battle-tested attorneys may be able to hold the instructor and skydiving school liable for their negligence through a wrongful death claim.

Pursuing a personal injury lawsuit against another party whose carelessness or recklessness caused you harm may be one of the most important things you ever do. With a highly experienced attorney fighting your case, the assumption of risk does not necessarily have to be a complete bar to the damages you deserve. Before waiving your legal right to compensation or accepting a low-ball settlement offer, it is imperative to talk with Jed Dietrich, Esq. Jed Dietrich, Esq. has uncompromisingly litigated to demand over $175 Million in verdicts and settlements for victims who were injured in Niagara Falls, New York, throughout Niagara County, and beyond. The Dietrich Law Firm P.C.’s elite lawyers can investigate your accident, formulate a highly successful litigation strategy, and aggressively negotiate to ensure that you are in a position to obtain the best result. We offer completely free lawsuit evaluations and would be honored to speak with you about your potential claim. The Dietrich Legal Team is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at (716) 839-3939 or by filling out the online consultation form

The Three Different Types of Assumption of Risk

There are 3 distinct types of assumption of risk under New York law. As mentioned above, the assumption of risk is a defense that can be asserted by a defendant to avoid responsibility for a plaintiff’s damages. This legal doctrine maintains that the plaintiff knowingly and willingly exposed him or herself to the risk of harm by participating in the same undertaking that led to their injuries. While the primary assumption of risk is the strongest of the defenses, it is also restricted to conditions where the nature of the action itself would not be the same if the participant did not assume the risk. A common example of a primary assumption would be boxers acknowledging the risk of getting knocked out in the ring. An express assumption, the second type, generally occurs when a participant acknowledges that they accept the risks of a particular activity, such as white-water rafting or rock climbing, in writing.

The last type of assumed risk is called the implied assumption of risk. As the name suggests, this risk is inferred, meaning that the plaintiff did not sign an assumption of risk. This type of assumption typically results in situations where the plaintiff’s actions signal an acceptance. For instance, every year, roughly 1,750 fans get injured by foul balls at Major League Baseball (MLB) games. Fans know that baseballs often fly into the stands at games. Therefore, the MLB’s legal team would argue that you assumed the risk of being struck by a baseball and suffering a traumatic brain injury (TBI) by attending a game. If the assumption of risk doctrine was strictly applied, the baseball players, teams, league, and owner of the ballpark would not be held accountable. Another example would be exercising at a hotel gym without any staff members. Assuming that there are signs posted that those who train do so at their own risk. If you decide to pump iron, the hotel could argue that you accepted the risk of getting crushed by weights.



Invalidating Assumed Risks to Recover Full Compensation

Personal Injury AttorneysIn some unfortunate situations, primary and express assumptions of risk can completely bar a plaintiff’s recovery. However, there are always exceptions to these rules, especially when the victim had no way of foreseeing the assumption of liability. While the primary assumption of risk defense presumes athletes understand the risks accompanying their particular sport, it can be defeated by showing that the plaintiff’s harm was not reasonably foreseeable. For instance, a freak accident causes a golfer to suffer a wrongful death because his cart flipped over at Hyde Park Golf Course. Furthermore, if your injuries were caused by another player’s bad sportsmanship, it could be argued that the conduct did not align with the rules of the game.

Express assumptions of risk completely waiving a signatory’s right to pursue compensation are not always enforceable. For example, parents who are forced to sign a mandatory waiver to enroll their toddler in swimming classes. The Dietrich Law Firm’s seasoned litigators could argue that this type of waiver should be invalidated depending on the damages suffered and the particular wording. Moreover, the swimming school could still be held responsible for the toddler’s injuries if they acted negligently or recklessly, like if the toddler drowned because the instructor left him alone in the pool. Implied assumption of risk generally will not prohibit compensation. When this defense is raised, courts are inclined to apply a comparative fault standard. This would determine each party’s level of responsibility for the accident. In this situation, victims could still obtain damages even if they were found partially responsible. However, the amount of compensation that the victim recovers would be reduced by the percentage that they were at fault.

As you can see, lawsuits involving assumptions of risk can be extremely complicated. Whether or not an assumption of risk will be relevant to your particular case is heavily contingent on the sequence of events that caused the accident. Hence, the importance of retaining a highly experienced and knowledgeable personal injury attorney cannot be overstated. Jed Dietrich, Esq. has exclusively litigated serious personal injury claims since 1999, including many cases involving assumptions of risk. The Dietrich Law Firm P.C.’s veteran lawyers are exceedingly skilled at effectively countering assumptions of risk defenses and ensuring that responsible parties pay for the damages they cause. Our battle-tested attorneys refuse to allow someone else’s negligence or carelessness to destroy your life. Please contact Jed Dietrich, Esq. and his leading injury attorneys now at 716-839-3939 or by completing our online consultation form

Call the Dietrich Law Firm P.C. immediately at (716) 839-3939 so that our aggressive, tenacious, and hardworking personal injury lawyers can fight to obtain the best result for your personal injury claim in Niagara Falls, New York. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and there is never a fee until we WIN for you!

Client Reviews
I am a medical doctor and have worked with many of the best lawyers in Buffalo and I can say without question that Jed Dietrich is the only lawyer I would trust with my injury case in Buffalo New York. B.O.
Dogged, Determined, and Dead-set on getting you the Maximum settlement for your injuries! T.F.
No one will work harder, smarter or better; I have retained Jed and he obtained the best result for my case. D.P.
The definition of an "A" type personality-exactly who I would want to represent me in a serious personal injury case. E.S.
Jed is a Master in the courtroom without an equal. S.C.
Marquis Who's Who
Elite Lawyers of America