Which defense can be used if a plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury?

The notion of assumption of risk is fundamental in personal injury law, particularly in cases where a plaintiff is injured while engaging in activities that entail inherent dangers. When a plaintiff voluntarily participates in an activity knowing the risks involved, they may be deemed to have accepted those risks. This legal doctrine serves as a complete defense for defendants in such cases, meaning that if the plaintiff is found to have willingly assumed the risk, they may be barred from recovering damages for any injuries incurred as a result.

This principle is often applied in various scenarios, such as participating in contact sports, amusement park rides, or other activities where potential hazards are obvious and known. By establishing that a plaintiff had full awareness of the dangers and still chose to proceed, the defendant can effectively argue that the plaintiff's own actions led to their injury.

In contrast, the other concepts like comparative negligence and contributory negligence deal with the distribution of fault between parties, and res ipsa loquitur applies to cases where the injury itself suggests negligence without the requirement of direct evidence to prove it. These doctrines do not specifically address the voluntary acceptance of risk in the same direct manner that assumption of risk does.