WPI 13.01 Assumption of Risk—Implied Unreasonable

Use WPI 11.01 (Contributory Negligence—Definition) for actions involving unreasonable assumption of risk.

Use WPI 13.03 (Assumption of Risk—Implied Primary) or WPI 13.04 (Assumption of Risk—Express) for actions involving implied primary or express assumption of risk.

RCW 4.22.015.

A risk is unreasonably assumed if the plaintiff has voluntarily and unreasonably encountered a known risk created by another's negligence. ITT Rayonier, Inc. v. Puget Sound Freight Lines,44 Wn.App. 368, 722 P.2d 1310 (1986).

Unlike express and implied primary assumption of risk, which address whether the plaintiff relieved the defendant of a duty of care, the focus of this form of assumption of risk is the objective unreasonableness of the plaintiff's conduct in assuming the risk. When a plaintiff unreasonably assumes a known risk, the plaintiff's conduct amounts to contributory negligence, there being no substantial difference between the two defenses in their legal effect. In Lyons v. Redding Const. Co., 83 Wn.2d 86, 94–95, 515 P.2d 821 (1973), the Washington Supreme Court merged these two defenses and held that unreasonable assumption of risk has no continued existence as a separate defense if the defense of contributory negligence is available. See also Tincani v. Inland Empire Zoological Soc'y., 124 Wn.2d 121, 145, 875 P.2d 621 (1994); Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wn.2d 484, 497, 834 P.2d 6 (1992). RCW 4.22.015 codifies the rule established in Lyons v. Redding Const. Co., 83 Wn.2d 86, by providing that contributory fault includes unreasonable assumption of risk.

For a discussion of assumption of risk in general, see WPI 13.00 (Introduction).