Imagine you’ve been injured in Minnetonka, MN. The days feel longer, recovery is slower than expected, and you’re starting to question what went wrong—and who’s truly at fault. Someone else’s actions may have played a role, but does the law recognize that? That’s where the idea of secondary assumption of risk becomes critical. It can impact how responsibility is assessed and whether your personal injury claim results in financial recovery.
At Schmidt & Salita Law Team, our role is to provide Minnesotans with clear guidance during uncertain times, offering perspective, direction, and a steady hand through a difficult process.
Assumption of risk is a legal doctrine that affects whether an injured person can recover damages. According to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, assumption of risk is a common law doctrine that prevents plaintiffs from recovering damages when they voluntarily accept the risks associated with certain activities, effectively shielding defendants from liability in those situations.
This concept often comes into play in personal injury cases involving recreational activities, risky job conditions, or situations where hazards were clearly marked or explained. Courts don’t automatically side with the defense, though. They examine how well the plaintiff understood the danger. Were there clear warnings? Was there a safer alternative? Could the injury have been avoided with reasonable caution?
Assumption of risk falls into two main categories, each carrying its own legal definition, application, and implications for how personal injury cases are evaluated. These distinctions matter because they help determine not only whether a defendant owed a duty of care, but also whether a plaintiff’s actions could limit or reduce potential compensation.
The primary assumption of risk applies when someone voluntarily participates in an inherently dangerous activity and fully accepts those risks from the outset. The other party has no duty of care because the risk is considered part of the activity. For example, going to a baseball game and getting hit by a foul ball could fall into this category, since fans are generally aware that balls might fly into the stands and cause injury during play.
This doctrine protects defendants from liability when the plaintiff’s injury results from risks integral to a specific activity. Sports and recreational programs often rely on this principle when defending against injury claims.
However, not all risks are considered primary. The danger must be inherent to the activity and not a result of poor maintenance or defective equipment. That’s where the line between primary and secondary assumption of risk becomes important.
Secondary assumption of risk comes into play when someone gets hurt after being exposed to a danger caused by another person’s negligence, and chooses to continue even though they understand the risk. Unlike the primary assumption, the defendant may still have had a duty of care, but the injured person continued despite knowing the danger.
This concept often comes up in workplace settings or premises liability cases, especially when a person recognizes unsafe conditions but continues because of job requirements or other pressures. While courts consider these factors, they also weigh whether the injured party had other options or fully understood the potential for harm.
To clarify, the secondary assumption of risk doesn’t eliminate liability. Instead, it is used to reduce or modify how much the defendant may owe, based on the plaintiff’s share of responsibility.
For example, if an employee is aware that a stairway lacks proper lighting but uses it anyway because it’s the only exit route, a court might find that some fault lies with the property owner, but also assign a portion of responsibility to the injured employee.
The way the secondary assumption of risk interacts with a personal injury case can directly impact the outcome. It doesn’t necessarily erase a defendant’s liability, but it can lead to some of the blame being placed on the plaintiff. In some cases, this may result in a reduced compensation amount that reflects the plaintiff’s share of fault, depending on how the court evaluates each party’s role in the incident.
Courts look at context and ask several key questions:
These elements influence how courts view the strength of the defense argument. In practical terms, even if a plaintiff knew the danger, they might still receive compensation, just a reduced amount compared to what they might have received if they had no responsibility at all.
Minnesota uses a comparative fault model, which means fault can be divided among everyone involved in a personal injury case. As noted by Minnesota Statute § 604.01, contributory fault does not bar a person from recovering damages in a personal injury case, as long as their share of fault is not greater than that of the party they’re suing. However, any compensation awarded will be reduced in proportion to the claimant’s share of fault.
Although this statute outlines how fault may be allocated in injury claims, it doesn’t speak directly to all aspects of negligence law in Minnesota. So, when secondary assumption of risk is raised by a defense attorney, it doesn’t always end the case. Instead, it may influence how much the injured person receives, depending on how the court views their role in the incident. This makes it especially important for injured individuals to understand how shared fault could affect their recovery and to gather as much detail as possible to support their case.
Liability waivers are often used by businesses and organizations to limit their responsibility for injuries. While courts may enforce these agreements in some situations, they aren’t guaranteed to be valid. Courts in Minnesota typically look at whether the waiver was clearly written, signed voluntarily, and explained the risks involved in a way that was easy to understand.
Even if someone signed a waiver, they may still be able to bring a claim if the injury resulted from conduct that was grossly negligent, reckless, or involved actions not clearly outlined in the waiver. Additionally, waivers usually do not remove obligations related to keeping the property safe or addressing known risks of harm.
In cases where secondary assumption of risk becomes a factor, a waiver might be used as part of the defense. Still, the court looks at surrounding facts—such as what the injured person knew, how the waiver was presented, and whether the injury involved risks beyond what the person agreed to.
For example, a waiver may outline general gym use, but if someone is injured because of broken equipment that the staff failed to repair, the waiver may not be enforceable. What matters is whether the danger that caused the injury was clearly explained to the individual beforehand.
Personal injury cases can feel overwhelming, especially when concepts like secondary assumption of risk start to affect your rights. At Schmidt & Salita Law Team, we guide individuals in Minnetonka, MN, through every legal nuance so they don’t have to navigate it alone. Whether your injury happened at work, on someone else’s property, or during a recreational activity, and you believe another party’s actions contributed to what happened, contact us today at (952) 473-4530
Joshua W. Laabs is a dedicated personal injury and workers’ compensation attorney with over a decade of experience advocating for injury victims. A partner at Schmidt & Salita Law Team, Josh has built a strong reputation for successfully representing clients against at-fault parties and insurance companies. Recognized as a “Top 40 Under 40” Lawyer and a Rising Star by Super Lawyers.
This page has been written, edited, and reviewed by a team of legal writers following our comprehensive editorial guidelines. This page was approved by Founding Partner, Dean M. Salita, with more than 30 years of legal experience as a personal injury attorney.
Seeking burn compensation in Minnesota can feel overwhelming, especially when the costs of treatment and lost wages start to build....
view article
In Minnesota, workers' comp permanent disability settlement discussions often focus on two key categories: Permanent Partial Disabi...
view article
Boating accidents often raise an urgent and important question: what type of report must be filed if there is an accident while boa...
view article
Oveer 135 reviews
1600 Hopkins Crossroad
Minnetonka, MN 55305
Phone (952) 473-4530
Toll Free 1-800-656-8450
Fax (952) 544-1308
call us: 952.473.4530
