Being injured on someone else’s property often comes with immediate physical, financial, and emotional stress. But beyond medical treatment and recovery, many people also face uncertainty about their legal rights. It’s common to question whether you were partly responsible, especially if you noticed a hazard before the accident occurred.
Property owners and their insurers may quickly suggest that you “knew the risk” and chose to proceed anyway. In some cases, they may argue that your awareness of the hazard limits or even eliminates their responsibility. For injured individuals, this can create doubt: If I saw the danger, do I still have a claim?
What Is Voluntary Assumption of Risk?
Voluntary assumption of risk is a legal defence sometimes raised in personal injury claims involving dangerous premises. It is intended to limit or eliminate a property owner’s liability where an injured person knowingly and willingly accepted a specific risk that ultimately caused their injury.
However, the legal threshold for this defence is high. It is not enough to show that the injured person saw a hazard or understood that something could be dangerous. To succeed, the defendant must prove that the injured person:
- Fully understood the nature and extent of the specific risk
- Accepted the legal consequences of that risk, meaning they effectively agreed to give up their right to sue if that risk materialized
The law requires evidence that the injured party agreed, either expressly or implicitly, to assume both the physical danger and the legal responsibility for what might happen. Because of this demanding standard, voluntary assumption of risk is narrowly applied by the courts. It is not automatically triggered simply because a hazard was visible or because someone chose to proceed despite some level of risk.
What Duty Do Property Owners Owe?
Commercial, residential, and municipal property owners have a legal duty under the Occupiers Liability Act to take reasonable care to ensure that visitors are reasonably safe while on their premises. “Reasonable care” does not mean eliminating every possible risk; the law recognizes that not all hazards can be prevented. However, property owners are expected to act responsibly and proactively in maintaining their premises. This typically includes:
- Conducting regular inspections of the property
- Repairing known hazards within a reasonable period of time
- Addressing foreseeable risks before someone is injured
- Providing clear and adequate warnings where a danger cannot immediately be corrected
If a property owner knew, or reasonably ought to have known, about a dangerous condition and failed to take appropriate steps to address it, they may be legally responsible for injuries that result.
When Does Voluntary Assumption of Risk Actually Apply?
As mentioned, voluntary assumption of risk doesn’t automatically apply when someone is injured. Property owners can only raise this defence when evidence shows the injured person:
- Knew exactly what the specific risk was
- Understood the seriousness of the potential harm
- Agreed to accept the legal consequences of that risk
For example, if a victim signed a liability waiver that clearly asserted risks and the property owner took action to reasonably mitigate risks, and someone is still injured, voluntary assumption of risk would likely apply. When it comes to more everyday scenarios, such as accidents involving stores, sidewalks, parking lots, or residential buildings, contributory negligence is more commonly applied.
When Awareness Doesn’t Equal Legal Responsibility
Many accidents occur while visitors are using a space exactly as it was intended to be used: shopping in a store, walking through a parking lot, entering an apartment building, or navigating a public walkway. The fact that a person noticed something potentially unsafe does not mean they agreed to assume the legal risk of injury.
When courts assess these situations, they look at the broader context. They may consider whether:
- The hazard was realistically avoidable
- The danger was more serious than a reasonable person would have expected
- The property owner failed to take reasonable steps to inspect, repair, or warn about the condition
A general warning sign, such as “Use at your own risk,” does not automatically waive your rights. Broad or vague warnings are rarely enough on their own to establish voluntary assumption of risk. The key issue remains whether the property owner fulfilled their legal duty to take reasonable care under the circumstances.
Protecting Victim Rights After an Accident
At Stephens & Holman, we represent individuals who have been injured on dangerous premises throughout BC. If a property owner or insurer argues that you “knew the risk,” we assess whether that defence truly applies and whether your rights are being unfairly limited. Our role is to protect your interests, clarify your legal options, and pursue fair compensation where a property owner has failed to meet their legal duty. Contact one of our offices to learn more or to schedule a consultation.