A defendant is not confined to denials of the allegations of the complaint or petition, but is entitled to set out new matter in defense or as a basis for affirmative relief. In a suit in which plaintiff alleges that defendant has been negligent, assumption of risk is sometimes a defense which a defendant can raise. In raising such a defense, defendant basically states that the plaintiff knowingly assumed the risk of the harm that was caused. The Second Defense of this form gives an example of pleading such a defense.
This form is a generic example of an answer and affirmative defense that may be referred to when preparing such a pleading for your particular state.
Title: Understanding Oregon's Affirmative Defense of Assumption of Risk in Civil Lawsuits Introduction: When faced with a civil lawsuit in Oregon, defendants may employ the affirmative defense of assumption of risk. This defense asserts that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks associated with the activity that caused their alleged injuries. To explore this defense in more detail, this article will provide a comprehensive overview of Oregon's legal framework and various types of defendant responses in a civil lawsuit alleging assumption of risk. 1. Overview of Oregon's Assumption of Risk Defense: — Oregon acknowledges the affirmative defense of assumption of risk, which is rooted in the concept that individuals should bear the consequences of their own choices. — This defense applies when the plaintiff, through their actions or conduct, has willingly accepted the known risks involved in a particular activity or situation. 2. Key Elements of Assumption of Risk Defense: a. Knowledge of the Risk: — Defendants must demonstrate that the plaintiff was aware of the specific risks associated with the activity that caused their injury or harm. — This includes demonstrating that the risks were reasonably obvious or known to a person with ordinary perception or knowledge. b. Voluntarily Assuming the Risk: — Defendants must establish that the plaintiff not only had knowledge of the risks but also voluntarily chose to accept them. — The defendant may argue that the plaintiff engaged in the activity willingly and without undue influence or coercion. c. Causation: — Defendants must show a direct link between the assumed risk and the plaintiff's injuries. — They must illustrate that the injuries suffered were a direct result of the specific risk that was known and voluntarily accepted by the plaintiff. 3. Types of Oregon Answers in Civil Lawsuits Alleging Assumption of Risk: a. General Denial: — Defendants may choose to issue a general denial response to the complaint, stating that they deny all allegations made by the plaintiff, including the assumption of risk claims. b. Affirmative Defense: — Defendants may specifically assert the affirmative defense of assumption of risk as part of their answer to the plaintiff's complaint. — In this case, defendants must provide factual evidence supporting their claim, including details related to the plaintiff's knowledge, volunteerism, and causation. c. Comparative Fault: — Defendants may argue that the plaintiff's actions or negligence contributed to the injuries suffered, minimizing or eliminating liability. — Under Oregon's comparative fault law, if the plaintiff is found partially responsible for their injuries, their recoverable damages may be reduced proportionately. Conclusion: Understanding Oregon's affirmative defense of assumption of risk in civil lawsuits is essential for defendants seeking to protect their rights. By effectively presenting this defense, defendants can argue that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risks associated with the activity in question. However, successfully asserting this defense requires careful consideration of Oregon's legal framework and the specific elements needed to validate the assumption of risk claim.
