Under the assumption of risk doctrine, when is it considered a complete defense to negligence?

The assumption of risk doctrine serves as a complete defense to negligence when the plaintiff voluntarily accepts a known risk associated with an activity or situation. In this context, voluntary acceptance means that the plaintiff is aware of the specific risks involved and chooses to proceed despite that awareness. This principle underscores the idea that individuals have the autonomy to make decisions regarding their participation in activities that carry inherent dangers.

For the assumption of risk to apply effectively, the plaintiff must demonstrate that they understood the nature of the risk and willingly accepted it. This can include scenarios like participating in contact sports or signing a waiver before engaging in potentially hazardous activities. By asserting that the plaintiff has accepted a known risk, the defendant can argue that liability should not attach because the plaintiff had the opportunity to avoid the risk but chose not to.

The other options do not accurately represent the conditions under which assumption of risk operates. If the plaintiff is unaware of the risks or asserts risks without fully understanding them, their acceptance is not considered voluntary, which means the defense would not apply. Additionally, if the defendant failed to warn the plaintiff about the risks, it undermines the premise of informed consent necessary for the assumption of risk to be a valid defense. Thus, the correctness of the answer lies in the clarity of the