Assumption of risk is a defense that a defendant can assert in a product liability lawsuit when the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumes the risk of using a product. This defense is based on the principle that a person cannot recover damages for injuries that they voluntarily and knowingly expose themselves to.

There are two main types of assumption of risk: express assumption of risk and implied assumption of risk. Express assumption of risk occurs when the plaintiff explicitly agrees to assume the risk of using a product. Implied assumption of risk occurs when the plaintiff's conduct demonstrates that they were aware of the risk and voluntarily chose to use the product anyway.

In order to establish an express assumption of risk defense, the defendant must show that the plaintiff knew and appreciated the risk, that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk, and that the risk was inherent in the product.

In order to establish an implied assumption of risk defense, the defendant must show that the plaintiff knew and appreciated the risk, that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk, and that the risk was open and obvious.

The main difference between express assumption of risk and implied assumption of risk is that express assumption of risk is subjective, while implied assumption of risk is objective. In other words, express assumption of risk requires the plaintiff to have actually known and appreciated the risk, while implied assumption of risk only requires the plaintiff to have had the opportunity to know and appreciate the risk.

Assumption of risk is a valid defense when the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumes the risk of using a product. This means that the plaintiff must have known and appreciated the risk, and must have voluntarily chosen to use the product anyway.

Assumption of risk may be a valid defense in cases involving a wide variety of products, including power tools, sports equipment, chemicals, and many others. In each case, the key question is whether the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of using the product.

When evaluating an assumption of risk defense, courts consider a number of factors, including the plaintiff's knowledge of the risk, the plaintiff's voluntary assumption of the risk, and the obviousness of the risk.

Whether assumption of risk can be used as a defense in a strict liability case depends on the jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, assumption of risk is not a valid defense in strict liability cases. In other jurisdictions, assumption of risk may be a valid defense in strict liability cases, but only if the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of using the product.

Assumption of risk is not a valid defense if the defendant is negligent, if the plaintiff is a child, or if the product is defective.

Assumption of risk differs from contributory negligence in a number of ways. First, assumption of risk is a subjective defense, while contributory negligence is an objective defense. Second, assumption of risk requires the plaintiff to have known and appreciated the risk, while contributory negligence does not. Third, assumption of risk is a complete defense, while contributory negligence is a partial defense.

Assumption of risk can be a valid defense in product liability lawsuits, can limit the plaintiff's recovery in a product liability lawsuit, and can bar the plaintiff's claim in a product liability lawsuit.

There are a number of challenges associated with assumption of risk in product liability law, including the difficulty of determining whether the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk, the difficulty of determining whether the risk was open and obvious, and the difficulty of determining whether the defendant is negligent.

One of the recent trends in assumption of risk in product liability law is that courts are becoming more reluctant to find that assumption of risk is a valid defense. This is due in part to the fact that courts are increasingly recognizing the importance of protecting consumers from dangerous products.

It is likely that assumption of risk will become a less common defense in product liability lawsuits in the future. This is due to the fact that courts are increasingly recognizing the importance of protecting consumers from dangerous products.