Extreme Sports and Assumption of Risk: a Blueprint
Articles Extreme Sports and Assumption of Risk: A Blueprint By DAVID HORTON* A GROWING NUMBER of personal injury litigants stand outside the contours of tort law. Plaintiffs who are hurt while engaging in high risk recreational activities do not fit within a doctrine that uses "rea- sonableness" as its central criterion. Reasonableness hinges on whether the cost of an untaken precaution outweighs that of a particu- lar harm.1 In many risky sports, the only way to avoid getting hurt is to forego the activity altogether. For most people, this is not a burden. Even if it is, the lost opportunity value is dwarfed by the omnipresent specter of grave injury. For example, consider the sport of motocross, 2 which involves racing and performing stunts on off-road motorcycles. Motocross is so dangerous that midway through the professional cir- cuit's most recent season, half of its contestants had suffered broken bones or concussions.3 Thus, the reasonably prudent person would probably never try the sport.4 However, if it is unreasonable to take part in motocross, then it must also be unreasonable for a motocross * J.D., UCLA Law School (2004); B.A., Carleton College (1997). Warmest thanks to Alison Anderson for her generosity. Thanks also to Ben Liu, Margaret Saxton, Cambra Stern, Tritia Setoguchi, Trevor Stordahl, and Kirk Uhrlaub. Finally, thanks to the U.S.F. Law Review staff and editors for all their hard work, including Jacqueline Brown Scott and Rebecca Lillig. This Article is dedicated to my wife and best friend, Annie. 1. See, e.g., United States v.
[Show full text]