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 Rhode Island's Affirmative Defense of Assumption of Risk Introduction: In the context of a civil lawsuit in Rhode Island, the defendant may raise the affirmative defense of assumption of risk to counter the plaintiff's claims. This article explores the concept of assumption of risk in relation to Rhode Island law and discusses its various types and applications. 1. Definition of Assumption of Risk: Assumption of risk refers to the legal principle where an individual voluntarily and knowingly accepts the potential dangers or hazards associated with engaging in a certain activity or event. By assuming the risk, the defendant argues that the plaintiff should bear responsibility for any resulting injuries or damages. 2. The Elements of Assumption of Risk Defense: To successfully employ the assumption of risk defense, the defendant must demonstrate the following: a) Knowledge and Awareness: The defendant needs to establish that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the potential risks involved in a particular activity and voluntarily chose to participate despite that knowledge. b) Voluntary Participation: It must be proven that the plaintiff voluntarily engaged in the activity or event without any coercion or undue influence. c) Acceptance of Known Risks: The defendant must show that the plaintiff knowingly accepted the risks associated with the activity, thereby releasing the defendant from liability. 3. Types of Assumption of Risk Defenses in Rhode Island: Rhode Island recognizes two main types of assumption of risk defenses: a) Express Assumption of Risk: This defense occurs when the plaintiff explicitly agrees, either in writing or verbally, to assume the known risks associated with an activity. This often arises in contracts or waivers signed before participating in potentially dangerous activities, such as skydiving or extreme sports. b) Implied Assumption of Risk: Implied assumption of risk applies when the plaintiff's conduct demonstrates that they understood and chose to accept the inherent risks involved in a particular activity. This defense commonly arises in situations where a reasonable person would have been aware of and appreciated the risks involved, even if not explicitly stated. 4. Applicability of Assumption of Risk Defense in Rhode Island: The assumption of risk defense is not applicable in all situations. Rhode Island courts consider several factors before determining the validity of the defense, including: a) Public Policy: Courts assess whether it would be against public policy to allow defendants to contractually or impliedly shift liability to plaintiffs for certain activities. b) Specific Activity: The type of activity in question, its nature, and whether the risks associated with it are common knowledge or explicitly communicated to participants. c) Seriousness of Harm: Courts consider the reasonable expectations of the parties regarding the potential harm that may arise from the activity. The defense may be denied in cases involving extreme or intentionally harmful conduct. Conclusion: Rhode Island recognizes the affirmative defense of assumption of risk, allowing defendants to argue that plaintiffs voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks associated with an activity. Understanding the two main types of assumption of risk defenses and their elements is crucial for defendants seeking to protect themselves from liability in civil lawsuits. However, consulting with a knowledgeable attorney is recommended to navigate the complex legal landscape and assess the defense's viability in a specific case.
