Assumption of the Risk

       Out of the Arizona Diamondbacks' 2001 spring-training camp came reports that, during a game against the Giants, a dove had flown into the path of a Randy Johnson fastball. By all accounts, the dove didn't stand a chance. Rod Barajas, who was catching for the Diamondbacks at the time, had the best perspective on the incident. "All you see is an explosion," Barajas said. If it had been a Tim Wakefield knuckleball, the dove might have fared better. With Randy Johnson on the mound, however, there was no way. At best, a dove can fly seventy miles an hour. Randy Johnson's fastballs routinely hit the high nineties. The dove was overmatched. No one will ever know whether the dove saw the pitch coming, whether it knew what hit it. All that is known is that the dove was in the wrong place at the wrong time. In legal parlance, the dove had placed itself in the path of danger. It assumed the risk of injury--or worse.

       The doctrine of assumption of the risk applies in situations where people--or doves--voluntarily put themselves in danger from a known peril. It is this doctrine that often prevents spectators from successfully suing for injuries caused by foul balls at baseball games. When sued for such injuries, a baseball team will argue, in its defense, that the injured person assumed the risk. Assumption of the risk applies when the injured person (1) knows of the dangerous condition, (2) understands the nature and extent of the danger, and (3) voluntarily exposes himself to the danger.