Crossing the Line and Assumption of Risk

Broadcaster “Boomer” Esiason called Cincinnati Bengals’ linebacker Vontaze Burfict a “danger” to other players on the field, further suggesting that the National Football League suspend him for an extended period of time after he caused a serious personal injury to another player.

Trailing by one point in the waning moments of a playoff game at Cincinnati, the Pittsburgh Steelers benefitted from two personal foul calls against Bengals players Adam “Pacman” Jones and the aforementioned Mr. Burfict to maneuver into field goal range and win the game 18-16. Mr. Burfict’s offense was a vicious blow to Antonio Brown’s head; another broadcaster suggested that the Cincinnati linebacker had a “personal vendetta” against the Pittsburgh wide receiver.

Earlier in the contest, Mr. Burfict pressed his knee into Ben Roethlisberger’s shoulder, as the Pittsburgh quarterback lay on the ground following a sack. Mr. Roethlisberger, who had to leave the game to receive medical care for his shoulder, is now listed as day-to-day.

Assumption of the Risk

During a negligence trial, insurance companies often attempt to introduce this defense by suggesting that the injured person was in some way at fault for their own injuries as a way to decrease liability, or even avoid it altogether. At its core, assumption of the risk involves a voluntary assumption of a known risk. Both these elements must be present for the defense to be introduced, and the defendant generally has the burden of proof to convince the jury that the defense should be applied.

Like some other negligence defenses, assumption of the risk appears in many forms. Some of the most common ones are:

  • Conduct: Participants in an athletic contest expressly assume the risk of injury; the same theory applies to courtside spectators at a basketball game. However, participants may not assume the risk of intentionally inflicted on-the-field injuries or damages sustained in a fight after a rugby match.
  • Waiver: Many organizations require rock climbers, ice skaters, and other such participants to sign a liability waiver before they can participate in the activity. In some jurisdictions, these agreements are void, because they are against public policy. Moreover, such waivers might also be considered to be illegal take-it-or-leave-it contracts of adhesion.

The activity must also be unusual; for example, everyone assumes the risk of a car crash when they go on the road, but the defense does not apply in these situations.  In a car wreck, the defense is only viable if the injured person did something other than merely being on the road.  

Defenses in a Negligence Case

As mentioned, a defense can either reduce the amount of liability that the defendant has or erase it as a matter of law.

Georgia is a modified comparative fault state: the defendant must be at least 50.1 percent responsible for the incident for the plaintiff to receive damages. If the insurance company convinces the jury that the plaintiff was equally or even slightly more negligent than the defendant (e.g. the defendant was speeding but the plaintiff ran a red light), the plaintiff receives no compensation.

Insurance companies will do almost anything to avoid paying fair compensation to victims. For a free consultation with an aggressive personal injury attorney in Fayetteville, contact the Wade Law Firm today. Our firm has a small-town feel and ready access to nationwide resources.