In comparative negligence, is assumed risk a valid defense?

In the context of comparative negligence, the assertion that assumed risk is not permitted as a defense is accurate because comparative negligence operates on the principle that liability is allocated based on the degree of fault of each party involved. Under this system, a defendant's liability is reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's own negligence.

Assumed risk, on the other hand, is a doctrine that may completely bar a plaintiff from recovery if they voluntarily engaged in an activity while knowing and accepting the risks involved. Essentially, the idea behind assumed risk is that by choosing to participate in a risky activity, the plaintiff has agreed to assume the potential dangers that come with it, which can negate any recovery regardless of the defendant's negligence.

In jurisdictions that follow comparative negligence principles, allowing assumed risk as a complete defense would undermine the intended balance of fault that comparative negligence seeks to establish. Therefore, it is generally not an acceptable defense within the framework of comparative negligence, emphasizing that the defendant's responsibility can be evaluated based on the relative contributions of both parties to the harm suffered.

The problem arises because if assumed risk were accepted as a complete defense, it would contradict the essential nature of comparative negligence, which is meant to reflect the varying degrees of fault rather than completely absolving one party