The legal system recognizes the fact that a willingness on the part of anyone to participate in a particular activity could be viewed as an assumption of the risks that are associated with that same activity. That view pertains to situations where someone has agreed to undergo exposure to a known danger.
Legal questions that relate to such situations
Did the plaintiff agree to assume the risk of falling prey to a particular harm? Was the harm that injured the plaintiff in the same category as the risk that the plaintiff had accepted, and had assumed a readiness to handle?
Had the plaintiff been made aware of the waiver that was meant to protect the property owner from liability charges? Plaintiffs have a right to sue a property owner, if their signatures were placed on a document in the absence of a full disclosure, concerning the risks associated with the activity that the plaintiff planned to pursue.
Special issues that relate to implied assumption of risk
In an express assumption of risk, the injured party has been told about the existence of a potential danger, and has chosen to accept it, and deal with it, should that become necessary. The situation is different, in cases where the risk has been implied.
In such situations, someone that has chosen to take part in a given activity has, or should have an awareness of the risks that are associated with such activities. Consequently, a willingness to participate in such an activity represents an implied acceptance of the previously identified risks.
Whenever there has been an implied assumption of risk, the rules that relate to comparative or contributory negligence might factor into a jury’s decision. For example, a jury would need to decide to what degree a plaintiff’s actions had contributed to an injury, if the plaintiff had chosen to respond to an outrageous dare. A reasonable person would laugh-off such an outrageous dare, knowing that it was too risky. Hence, someone that tried to complete the action proposed by the dare could be viewed as negligent. Of course, the act of proposing the completion of a daring also qualifies as an example of negligence.
Liability of both parties
Thus, any injuries caused by the dare-maker and the dare-accepter could be blamed on both parties. Hence, that instance of shared blame would call for consideration of either the comparative of contributory negligence rules.
Note that consideration of the rules that relate to shared-blame does not take place when a personal injury case relates to expressly stated risks, as opposed to implied ones. Personal injury lawyers in Red Deer understand the difference between the 2 types of risky situations. That is why smart victims make a point of retaining such lawyers.