Talk:Assumption of risk

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kgoncalves10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposing the proposed merge

This is another area where U.S. law has diverged significantly from U.K. law and it makes no sense to merge because the articles are talking about two different things. Although the maxim "volenti non fit injuria" is still quoted in contemporary U.S. cases up to the present, it is usually quoted as part of a discussion of the history underlying the contemporary assumption of risk doctrine. The maxim itself is relatively unknown, is not a major point in tort law courses, and would get blank stares from most U.S. attorneys, who are more familiar with the "assumption of risk" terminology. Also, it sounds like as if U.K. law has not yet developed the important distinction between primary and secondary assumption of risk (which many recent cases in the U.S. turn on). --Coolcaesar 06:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Also Oppose This Merger: that maxim refers to "consent" when referring to intentional torts, assumption of risk deals with possible negligence claims, like when working in a hazardous environment you assume the risks inherent with the job, but there was no intent or substantial certainty that you would be injured. Basically, you "assume the risk" when dealing with negligence claims, and "consent" is used when dealing with intentional torts (e.g. battery) and claims. (J. Smith 2008)

Need more examples.

Specificly, I was wondering about Amusement Parks and roller coasters, but I think this could apply to other issues. In this case I would mean, a roller coaster (designed to appear frightening while being actually harmless) breaking down and causing injury, against say, someone going on a roller coaster and having a heart attack when they knew it was a possibility. I am not sure on heart attack unknown before the ride begins. I am bad with the googles so my searches as usual turned up very little in regards to this.

Any additional information about activities which are supposed to function as an inducing of temporary fear while being designed to never actually horrify or cause injury. The roller coaster was the best I could think of. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Volenti non fit injuria into Assumption of risk

Seems to be discussing same issue. Do others have a proposed distinction of article scope? Daask (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my above comments from 2007. It's pretty clear that you didn't take the time to read the talk page or both articles before proposing the merge. I always do both.

If you had, you would have noticed that the American doctrine draws two fundamental distinctions that English volenti doesn't draw: primary v. secondary and express v. implied.

The other major complication is that there is no uniform rule in the United States on comparative negligence. Only 12 states apply pure comparative negligence, 5 still apply contributory negligence, and the other 33 states, one federal district and three populated territories are all over the place in between. The way assumption of risk fits together with each of those fault allocation regimes is quite complex. England has none of that complexity.

The point is that you don't understand either assumption of risk or volenti. You are comparing apples to oranges. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]