Which term describes a defense based on the plaintiff's understanding of risk?

The correct term that describes a defense based on the plaintiff's understanding of risk is "Assumption of Risk." This legal doctrine applies when a plaintiff is found to have voluntarily and knowingly engaged in an activity that they understood involved certain risks. By participating in such activities, the plaintiff essentially accepts the potential hazards associated with them. Therefore, if an injury occurs as a result of those risks, the defendant may argue that the plaintiff should not be entitled to compensation because they accepted the risk voluntarily.

In contrast, contributory negligence involves a situation where the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the harm they suffered, while comparative negligence assesses the degree of fault assigned to both parties in an accident and reduces the damages accordingly. Strict liability refers to an obligation under the law to compensate another party for damages regardless of fault. Hence, "Assumption of Risk" accurately describes the concept wherein an individual's prior knowledge of risks plays a key role in determining liability.