You are already dealing with the aftermath of a car accident—and then the other driver’s insurance company hits you with a curveball. They claim you assumed the risk of getting hurt, so they are denying your claim. It’s frustrating, confusing, and feels deeply unfair.
Assumption of risk is a legitimate legal defense in some situations, but it is also one of the most misused arguments in car accident cases.
Knowing how this doctrine works and when it actually applies can make all the difference in protecting your right to compensation.
Learn more about assumption of risk from the Knoxville car accident attorneys from The Lawyers of Brown & Roberto.
What Does Assumption of Risk Mean?
Assumption of risk is a legal defense that applies when someone voluntarily and knowingly accepts the dangers associated with a particular activity.
In essence, if you understood that something was risky and chose to do it anyway, you may not be able to hold someone else responsible if that exact risk causes you harm.
This doctrine typically comes into play with inherently dangerous activities: contact sports, extreme recreation, or other situations where injury is a possibility.
The key elements are knowledge and voluntariness. You must have actually known about the specific risk, and you must have freely chosen to expose yourself to it.
How Assumption of Risk Applies to Car Accident Cases
In Tennessee, driving itself is not considered an inherently dangerous activity. It is a normal, everyday task that carries some level of risk, but not the kind of extreme danger the doctrine was designed to address.
Where assumption of risk might surface is in unusual situations. If you knowingly rode with an intoxicated driver, deliberately crossed a busy street against a red light, or participated in illegal street racing, the defense could potentially apply.
But even in these scenarios, it is not automatic.
The defendant must formally raise assumption of risk in their legal pleadings, and they must prove that you genuinely understood the danger and willingly accepted it. Tennessee courts also limit this defense to truly inherent risks, not just poor judgment or contributory negligence.
How to Challenge an Assumption of Risk Argument
Challenging assumption of risk requires showing that one or more essential elements are missing. Your attorney can argue that you did not have full knowledge of the danger; perhaps the risk was not obvious, or you were not informed properly.
They can also demonstrate that your participation wasn’t truly voluntary or that the defendant’s actions went beyond what you could reasonably anticipate.
In car accident cases, your lawyer can often prove that the other driver’s negligence created dangers you never agreed to accept, and that normal traffic participation doesn’t constitute assumption of risk.
Get Legal Help with Your Tennessee Car Accident Claim
When assumption of risk becomes part of a car accident dispute, it can complicate your ability to recover compensation—but it rarely eliminates your claim entirely.
A car accident lawyer can challenge improper assumption of risk defenses by demonstrating that the dangers you faced were unreasonable, that you did not have full knowledge of the risks, or that the other driver’s negligence went beyond the normal hazards of driving.
Contact us to schedule a free legal consultation today and start building your case against the at-fault driver.