Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJames, Fleming
dc.date2021-11-25T13:34:30.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:40:57Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:40:57Z
dc.date.issued1968-01-01T00:00:00-08:00
dc.identifierfss_papers/3071
dc.identifier.contextkey2283065
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/2448
dc.description.abstractThe second Restatement of Torts states that implied assumption of risk should be recognized as a separate defense. In a leading article over sixty years ago, Bohlen took the contrary position. A plaintiff's reasonable assumption of risk would not bar him unless the risk was one which defendant had a legal right to put up to plaintiff; and in such a case defendant breached no relevant duty. A plaintiff's unreasonable assumption of risk would constitute contributory negligence on his part; and this would be a defense without the need to invoke any separate doctrine. Bohlen was the reporter for the original part of the first Restatement of Torts, which reflected his view by giving no separate treatment to the doctrine of assumed risk.
dc.subjectAssumption of Risk: Unhappy Reincarnation
dc.subject78 Yale L.J. 185 (1968)
dc.titleAssumption of Risk: Unhappy Reincarnation
dc.source.journaltitleFaculty Scholarship Series
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:40:57Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/3071
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4118&context=fss_papers&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Assumption_of_Risk_Unhappy_Rei ...
Size:
2.292Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record