Author granted license

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Document Type

Book Chapter

Publication Date



Boston University School of Law




This chapter analyzes the nature of consensual rationales for precluding tort liability, and explores the relationship between consent to an intentional tort, assumption of risk, and victim negligence. Is consent conceptually and normatively distinguishable from assumption of risk? Yes and no: they differ in some respects, but share a common core. Are they equally valid bases for precluding, and not merely reducing, recovery? Yes: court justifiably invoke consent more often than assumption of risk, not because the doctrines differ in principle, but because of factual differences between the most common scenarios in which each arises. In paradigm consent scenarios, the two parties mutually benefit from the interaction, or the alleged tort-feasor justifiably relies on the other’s assent, but these features are often absent in assumption of risk scenarios.


Published as: 'Exploring the Relationship between Consent, Assumption of Risk, and Victim Negligence' in John Oberdiek, ed., 'Philosophical Foundations of the Law of Torts', Oxford University Press, 2014

Find on SSRN

Included in

Torts Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.