Understanding the “Assumption of Risk” Doctrine in Florida

You put yourself into this situation, so you assumed the risk and should have to deal with the injuries or property damage that occurred.

In a nutshell, that’s pretty much what the alleged negligent party or their insurance carrier are going to say when you file a personal injury claim in Florida. The “assumption of risk doctrine” can be confusing to understand, and we want to help. If you have any questions about a particular injury claim you are involved in, please feel free to reach out to a St. Petersburg injury attorney for a free consultation of your claim.

What is the Assumption of Risk Doctrine?

The assumption of risk doctrine essentially means that a person who voluntarily engages in an activity that has inherent dangers is accepting the possibility of injury. This doctrine can sometimes limit a victim’s ability to recover compensation in a personal injury lawsuit. In many states, the assumption of risk can be used as a defense to absolve or minimize liability for a defendant.

In practice, the doctrine argues that if someone knowingly participates in an activity with inherent risks, such as playing a contact sport or attending an event with obvious hazards, they accept the risks associated with it. For example, a football player assumes the risk of injury during a game, or a spectator at a baseball game assumes the risk of being hit by a foul ball.

Does Florida Recognize Assumption of Risk?

Florida’s approach to the assumption of risk doctrine is unique compared to other states. While many states allow the defense broadly, Florida limits its use in most personal injury cases. The state has largely done away with the traditional form of assumption of risk, especially in negligence claims. Instead, Florida uses a comparative negligence system, where fault is divided based on the percentage of responsibility assigned to each party.

However, Florida does still recognize the assumption of risk doctrine in specific circumstances, particularly in cases involving express assumption of risk and implied assumption of risk.

Express Assumption of Risk in Florida

Express assumption of risk occurs when an individual explicitly agrees to assume the risk of a dangerous activity, often through signing a waiver or contract. This is common in activities such as skydiving, rock climbing, or attending amusement parks. By signing a waiver, participants acknowledge the inherent dangers and agree not to hold the business or organization responsible for injuries.

In Florida, these waivers can be enforceable, but only if they are clear, understandable, and specific about the risks involved. Courts will carefully review the language of these waivers, and they may not hold up if they are found to be overly broad or ambiguous.

Implied Assumption of Risk in Florida

Implied assumption of risk occurs when a person’s actions suggest that they knew of the risks and still proceeded with the activity, even without signing a waiver. For example, a person who chooses to play a contact sport like football or basketball assumes the risks associated with the sport, such as the possibility of physical injury.

However, in Florida, implied assumption of risk is not commonly used as a defense in personal injury cases. This is because the state follows the comparative negligence model, where fault is divided among all parties involved based on their level of responsibility. Even if a plaintiff assumed some risk, they could still recover compensation as long as the other party was also negligent.

Comparative Negligence in Florida

Florida’s comparative negligence system allows individuals to recover compensation even if they were partially at fault for their own injuries. Under this system, each party’s level of responsibility is expressed as a percentage. For instance, if a person is found to be 20% responsible for their injuries, they can still recover 80% of the compensation.

This is important because it means that even if a plaintiff voluntarily assumed some risk, they are not automatically barred from recovering damages. Instead, the court will weigh their responsibility against the defendant’s negligence. The comparative negligence approach ensures that injured individuals can still pursue compensation for their losses, even when they share some fault.

When the Assumption of Risk May Not Apply

There are certain situations in Florida where the assumption of risk doctrine does not apply. For example, if a business owner, property owner, or employer is negligent in maintaining a safe environment, they may still be held liable even if the injured party was participating in an activity with known risks.

Furthermore, if the waiver or assumption of risk agreement was vague or deceptive, courts may refuse to enforce it. Businesses and organizations must be clear and transparent about the risks involved in an activity. Additionally, Florida law protects children in cases involving waivers signed by parents. Courts are often hesitant to enforce assumption of risk waivers when children are involved, particularly in cases where negligence is evident.

Understanding the assumption of risk doctrine is essential if you are pursuing a personal injury claim in Florida. While the state does recognize this doctrine in specific cases, it is often limited, and the comparative negligence system allows injured parties to seek compensation even if they assumed some risk. If you or a loved one has been injured and you are unsure how assumption of risk may affect your claim, it is important to consult with an experienced Florida personal injury attorney.

An attorney can help you navigate the complexities of Florida’s laws and ensure that your rights are protected. Reach out today for a free consultation to discuss your case.