Assumption of Risk CASES

In English tort law, assumption of risk is usually discussed under the defence of volenti non fit injuria (“to a willing person no injury is done”). It means that a claimant who freely and knowingly accepts the legal risk of harm cannot complain of it later. The focus is on real consent to the legal risk, not mere awareness that an activity is dangerous. Assumption of risk also appears in settings such as occupiers’ liability (warnings and obvious risks) and sporting or recreational activities, where people accept the inherent, ordinary risks of participation.

Definition and principles

The defendant must prove two things. First, the claimant understood the nature and extent of the risk. Secondly, the claimant agreed to accept responsibility for that risk freely and voluntarily. Knowledge alone is not enough; there must be a genuine choice. Context matters: employees, rescuers, and passengers in everyday transport rarely have a truly free choice, so the defence seldom succeeds there. In sport, participants consent to ordinary incidents of the game but not to reckless or malicious conduct outside the rules.

Common examples

• Sport and leisure: players and spectators accept the inherent risks of a properly conducted event (for example, lawful tackles or a stray ball). They do not consent to conduct that goes well beyond the rules.
• Recreational activities: climbers, motorsport participants, or similar may accept clearly explained inherent risks; negligent organisation can still found liability.
• Occupiers’ liability: clear, targeted warnings can make an adult visitor “reasonably safe” in the 1957 Act sense, where the risk is obvious and avoidable; alluring hidden dangers for children are treated differently.
• Road traffic and employment: statute and policy severely restrict reliance on consent to defeat personal injury claims by passengers or employees.

Legal implications

If established, assumption of risk is a complete defence. If it fails, the court may still reduce damages for contributory negligence where the claimant unreasonably exposed themselves to danger. Written waivers and notices are evidence of consent but are scrutinised closely: they do not excuse recklessness, and consumer/unfair-terms legislation limits attempts to exclude liability for negligence (especially for death or personal injury). In occupiers’ cases, warnings work only if they enable a visitor to be reasonably safe in context. Do not confuse this topic with assumption of responsibility (a duty-of-care concept for pure economic loss)—they address different questions.

Practical importance

When advising, identify the precise risk said to have been accepted and whether the claimant truly chose to take responsibility for it. Gather the materials that show what was communicated (briefings, signage, forms), the claimant’s experience, and the alternatives available (withdrawal, safer route, supervision). In sport and leisure, analyse how far the conduct departed from the rules and what the participant reasonably consented to. For defendants, a consistent risk-assessment and briefing trail is often decisive; for claimants, highlight pressure, inequality of bargaining power, hidden hazards, or conduct that went beyond inherent risks.

See also: Volenti non fit injuria; Contributory negligence; Occupiers’ liability; Recreational activity liability; Warnings and disclaimers; Standard of care; Assumption of responsibility (economic loss).