Role player injures self attempting to flip a table

Source: Wyrmwood Gaming

This is what some might call "assumption of the risk." As in: If you try to flip a heavy custom wood gaming table, you assume the risk of giving yourself a hernia.

But what is "assumption of the risk," legally speaking? In short, it is a potential defense that can be raised in any personal injury lawsuit. Assumption of the risk means that when one person sues another person for negligently injuring them, the defendant isn't legally responsible for any harm that the plaintiff assumed ahead of time they might suffer.

Washington recognizes four types of "assumption of risk":

(1) express;

(2) implied primary;

(3) implied reasonable; and

(4) implied unreasonable.

Confused yet? Don't be. The different categories sound more complicated than they actually are. Let's break them down one at a time.

Express Assumption of Risk:

This is where the plaintiff agrees in advance they won't hold the defendant liable for what would otherwise be negligence. The most common example is when someone signs a contract, waiver, or release -- like the kinds people sign to become members of a gym. If the defendant can prove there was a valid express waiver, and the harm plaintiff suffered was within the scope of that waiver, it would completely bar the plaintiff's suit against the defendant.

Implied Primary Assumption of Risk:

This is similar to an express waiver, but without the formality of a contract or a waiver. It's where the plaintiff fully knows of and appreciates a specific risk of injury, and voluntarily chooses to encounter the risk. The most common example is participating in a sport or other recreational activity. For example, if you play baseball, you assume the risk that you might get injured such as by being hit by the ball or colliding with another player. This also acts as a complete bar to recovery -- again, only for those risks within the scope of what plaintiff knew about and voluntarily encountered.

Because both express and implied primary assumption of risk are based upon the consent of the plaintiff and completely bar a plaintiff’s recovery if they apply, it is important for both to “carefully define the scope” of that consent. This is done by identifying all the duties the defendant would have owed to the plaintiff, and then separating out those duties the plaintiff consented to “assume the risk” of occurring, from those they did not.

Implied Reasonable/Implied Unreasonable Assumption of Risk:

The last two types of assumption of the risk are the same in Washington, and apply when the defendant has acted negligently, but the plaintiff has also acted negligently. Unlike with the other types of assumption of risk, when that happens, the plaintiff is not completely barred from recovering against the defendant. Instead, the jury will be instructed to "apportion" fault to both, and the defendant will not be legally responsible for the amount apportioned to the plaintiff.