Have you ever attended a baseball game, particularly a Major League game? If so, chances are the reverse side of your ticket for admission addresses your assumption of the known risks of attending such an event. Primarily, fans assume the risk of a baseball or bat leaving the playing field, striking them and inflicting serious injury.

Major League teams, including the Kansas City Royals, have extended the netting behind home plate. This is a valuable improvement for fan safety. However, what happens now when a batted ball strikes a fan just beyond the end of the netting? Once major league teams assume a greater duty to protect, what happens if they do it inadequately? These are issues yet to be resolved. However, many courts have upheld the protection enjoyed by sports teams for injuries to fans.

Do you know what it means to “assume the risk” of an activity? Many activities involve an element of risk. Some are inherent to the activity undertaken such as shooting off fireworks. However, people undertake tasks every day that are less threatening than shooting off fireworks. These tasks also require assumption of some inherent risk, despite all exercised due care.

Inherently Dangerous Activities
These can include extreme sports, contact sports, or recreational activities with clear hazards. For example, if you go skydiving, you’re likely assuming the risk of potential injury from the jump. Similarly, participating in a boxing match comes with an inherent risk of physical harm that participants are generally considered to have accepted.

Liability Release Waivers
Many of us have signed waivers or liability releases when participating in activities with known risks. In many cases, assumption of risk is explicitly stated in contracts or waivers. These agreements often include language that releases the organizer from liability for certain types of injuries or accidents.

However, while people often think these releases prevent them from suing for injuries, they typically don’t eliminate the right to sue, especially for negligence.

A waiver may outline ordinary risks associated with the activity, but it usually doesn’t cover injuries caused by the owner’s negligence. For example, if a gym requires a waiver claiming to release all liability but a poorly installed machine injures someone, the injured party can still sue the gym owner for negligence.

Waiting Owner’s Negligence
Many premises’ owners and activity organizers are increasingly including language in waivers that participants waive rights to sue for injuries resulting from the operator’s negligence, not just inherent risks. Courts generally disfavor such provisions, which must be clearly and conspicuously presented.

Participants often sign these waivers without fully understanding the implications, as they are rushed through the process. This creates “contracts of adhesion,” where the operator has all the leverage, leaving participants with little choice.

Defendants often claim participants assumed the risk, but there are many ways to challenge these waivers. An experienced attorney can help navigate these complexities, distinguishing between inherent risks known to the participant and those imposed by negligent operators.

Professional & Workplace Scenarios
Certain professions inherently involve higher levels of risk, and employees in these fields may be considered to have assumed some degree of risk by choosing to work in that industry. For instance, firefighters or construction workers face hazards that are an integral part of their job duties. However, it’s important to note that employers still have a duty to provide a reasonably safe work environment and follow safety regulations.