Comparative negligence/assumption: which statement is true?

• A. Contributory negligence bars recovery completely.
• B. Assumption of risk never affects damages.
• C. Contributory negligence or assumption of risk is an affirmative defense; damages reduced; implied assumption diminishes; express assumption may absolve duty.
• D. There is no concept of assumption of risk in sports.

Answer: (C)

In New York, liability is allocated using comparative negligence, and both contributory negligence and assumption of risk can be raised as defenses. These defenses are affirmative, meaning the defendant bears the obligation to prove them. If fault is shared, damages are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s own negligence. Implied assumption of risk typically reduces damages because the plaintiff knowingly accepted some danger, while express assumption can absolve the defendant from duty or liability altogether if a valid waiver or contract clearly releases the defendant from responsibility. This combination—fault-based reduction plus varying effects of implied versus express assumption of risk—is what choice C captures.

The other statements don’t fit the current framework: contributory negligence alone doesn’t bar recovery in New York, since the state uses comparative negligence; assumption of risk can affect damages, not be powerless; and there is a concept of assumption of risk in sports under certain circumstances, so that option isn’t correct either.