Photo from Pexels | Erik Mclean
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not create, nor shall it be construed as creating, a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. For advice on specific legal concerns, you are encouraged to engage the services of a qualified lawyer. You may also directly consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices for proper guidance tailored to your situation.
The views and information presented herein are based on the laws, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing. They do not take into account subsequent legal developments and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal advice.
AT A GLANCE:
The doctrine of assumption of risk means that one who voluntarily consents to accept danger of a known and appreciated risk assumes the risk of injury that may result from it. Assumption of risk may serve as a defense in negligence cases.
“Knowledge of the risk is the watchword of assumption of risk.”
— Prosser, as cited in Abrogar and Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames, Inc., G.R. No. 164749, March 15, 2017.
Article 2179 of the Civil Code reads:
“When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Abrogar and Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames, Inc., G.R. No. 164749, March 15, 2017,provides a comprehensive discussion of the doctrine of assumption of risk. In resolving the case, the Court explained the nature of the doctrine, its essential elements, and its application as a defense in negligence cases. The Court’s pronouncements remain instructive on this doctrine.
What is the Doctrine of Assumption of Risk?
The Supreme Court defined the doctrine of assumption of risk to mean that one who voluntarily exposes himself to an obvious, known and appreciated danger assumes the risk of injury that may result therefrom. It rests on the fact that the person injured has consented to relieve the defendant of an obligation of conduct toward him and to take his chance of injury from a known risk, and whether the former has exercised proper caution or not is immaterial.
In other words, it is based on voluntary consent, express or implied, to accept danger of a known and appreciated risk; it may sometimes include acceptance of risk arising from the defendant’s negligence, but one does not ordinarily assume risk of any negligence which he does not know and appreciate.
How does Assumption of Risk Arise?
According to the Supreme Court, Assumption of the risk in its primary sense arises by assuming through contract, which may be implied, the risk of a known danger.
What is the Essence of the Doctrine?
The Supreme Court also explained that the essence of assumption of risk is venturousness. It implies intentional exposure to a known danger; It embraces a mental state of willingness; It pertains to the preliminary conduct of getting into a dangerous employment or relationship, it means voluntary incurring the risk of an accident, which may or may not occur, and which the person assuming the risk may be careful to avoid; and it defeats recovery because it is a previous abandonment of the right to complain if an accident occurs.
Of course, if the defense is predicated upon an express agreement the agreement must be valid, and in the light of this qualification the rule has been stated that a plaintiff who, by contract or otherwise, expressly agreed to accept a risk of harm arising from the defendant’s negligent or reckless conduct, cannot recover for such harm unless the agreement is invalid as contrary to public policy.
Assumption of Risk as a Defense in Negligence Cases
As a defense in negligence cases, therefore, the doctrine requires the concurrence of three elements, namely:
(1) the plaintiff must know that the risk is present;
(2) he must further understand its nature; and
(3) his choice to incur it must be free and voluntary.
These elements were also enumerated by the Supreme Court in Abrogar and Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames, Inc..
Additionally, the Supreme Court further explained that the general principle underlying the defense of assumption of risk is that a plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm arising from the negligent or reckless conduct of the defendant cannot recover for such harm. The defense may arise where a plaintiff, by contract or otherwise, expressly agrees to accept a risk or harm arising from the defendant’s conduct, or where a plaintiff who fully understands a risk or harm caused by the defendant’s conduct, or by a condition created by the defendant, voluntarily chooses to enter or remain, or to permit his property to enter or remain, within the area of such risk, under circumstances manifesting his willingness to accept the risk.
Related article: Res Ipsa Loquitur
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.