Porsche Raises "Assumption of the Risk" Defense in Paul Walker Wrongful Death Suit

Porsche Cars North America raised some eyebrows when, in an answer filed in the lawsuit over the death of The Fast and the Furious franchise star Paul Walker, it asserted that Porsche is not liable because Walker assumed the risk of riding in its car. While the significance of Porsche's rather routine pleading has perhaps been a bit overblown in media reports, it provides a good opportunity to highlight the rule the "assumption of the risk" doctrine plays in modern American tort law and why Porsche will likely be unsuccessful with this defense.

Walker died alongside his friend, Roger Rodas, in a 2013 crash in Santa Clara, California while he was a passenger in Rodas's 2005 Porsche Carerra GT. An investigation determined that speed was the main cause of the crash, and that the car was traveling between 80 and 93 miles per hour. Walker's 16-year-old daughter sued Porsche alleging that the crash was caused by Porsche's failure to install a traction control system and that a defective seatbelt exacerbated Walker's injuries and prevented him from escaping the burning car.

In its answer, Porsche asserted a number of defenses, but the defense that gained the most media attention was "assumption of the risk." Porsche alleged that Walker "knowingly and voluntarily assumed all risk, perils and danger in respect to the use of the subject 2005 Carrera GT," and that his assumption of the risk "should bar the plaintiff's recovery or, in the alternative, should reduce the plaintiff's right to recovery from [Porsche] in an amount equivalent to Walker's fault." While it is understandable that Walker's family would find this apparent "blaming of the victim" offensive, it is a normal part of litigation for a defendant to plead every applicable defense in its answer, just as plaintiffs often plead every applicable theory of recovery when they file suit.

However, it is unlikely that Porsche's assumption of the risk defense will be successful. "Assumption of the risk" actually encompasses several overlapping doctrines that provide a defense to liability for negligence at common law. There is "express" assumption of the risk, which occurs when the plaintiff expressly agreed to relieve the defendant of liability for harm that might occur, such as when a plaintiff signed a waiver before going skydiving, for example.

The next type, sometimes called "primary" assumption of the risk, occurs when the plaintiff impliedly assumed the risk of harm by engaging in an inherently dangerous activity with the defendant, thereby relieving the defendant of the duty to avoid a particular type of harm. The most common example of this type of assumption of the risk is seen in competitive sport: if you play football, you assume the risk of injury inherent in football, and generally other players are not liable if they injure you in a way that might be expected to occur in a football game.

There is also "secondary" assumption of the risk, which occurs when the plaintiff encounters a danger created by the defendant (perhaps even negligently created by the defendant), but knowingly and voluntarily exposes himself to the risk anyway. At common law, "secondary" assumption of the risk was a complete defense to liability even if the plaintiff acted reasonably in exposing himself to the risk.

At common law, there was little practical difference between the various types of assumption of the risk, because the result was the same: the plaintiff found to have assumed the risk was completely barred from recovery. However, California, like Texas, has enacted a "comparative negligence" scheme (called "proportional responsibility" here in Texas) where fault is apportioned between the plaintiff and defendant, and the plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the percentage of fault assigned to him. This supplanted the all-or-nothing common-law rule of "contributory negligence" rule where the plaintiff recovered nothing if his own negligence was even slightly contributed to his injury.

California courts, like Texas courts, have abolished the "secondary" assumption of the risk defense, holding that, because this doctrine looks to the plaintiff's own conduct, it was subsumed into each state's respective comparative negligence scheme. Thus, even if it is found that Paul Walker knowingly exposed himself to a risk that was negligently created by Porsche, his family may still recover for his death, though this assumption of the risk can be taken into account by the jury in assigning a percentage of fault to Walker.

"Primary" assumption of the risk is still alive in California, however, just as it is in Texas. Courts have held that because this doctrine looks to the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and because it negates the defendant's legal duty, it has not been subsumed into the comparative negligence system. Thus, a plaintiff found to have "primarily" assumed the risk is still barred from recovery in both California and Texas.

However, it is unlikely that Porsche will succeed in a primary assumption of the risk defense. While primary assumption of the risk has been applied to defend other participants or hosts of the dangerous activity, such as other players, referees, and coaches, it is typically not applied to protect manufacturers of defective equipment. In fact, California courts are reluctant to apply the doctrine at all in cases of strict products liability cases like the suit against Porsche. For example, a California appellate court has held that the manufacturer of a jet ski could not assert assumption of the risk as a defense to a lawsuit filed by someone who was injured after falling off one of their jet skis.

If you or someone you know has been injured as a result of the carelessness of another, contact an attorney at Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend by calling 713-222-7211 or toll free at 1-800-870-9584.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Awards & Recognition

  • 2016-2017 Equal Access to Justice Champion

    The Equal Access to Justice Champions Program was started by the Houston Bar Association in 2006, to help ensure placement of Houston Volunteer Lawyers cases with pro bono volunteers. Originally, firms were tiered according to size, and firms within each tier committed to accept a certain number of pro bono cases from HVL each year for five years.

  • The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trial Lawyers

    The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 is an invitation-only organization composed of the premier trial lawyers from each state or region who meet stringent qualifications as civil plaintiff and/or criminal defense trial lawyers. Selection is based on a thorough multi-phase objective and uniformly applied process which includes peer nominations combined with third-party research.

  • Million Dollar Advocates Forum

    Established in 1993, the Million Dollar Advocates Forum (which includes the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum) is one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers in the United States. Membership is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements. There are over 4000 members throughout the country. Fewer than 1% of U.S. lawyers are members.

  • Recognized by Best Lawyers America | Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Aziz | 2017

    Recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review. Their methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.

  • Lead Counsel Rated

    In order to earn the Lead Counsel Rating, an attorney must not only demonstrate significant legal experience, but must also receive multiple peer recommendations advocating his or her ability. This is a key component in the screening process.

  • Texas Super Lawyers | Texas Monthly

    Each year, Super Lawyers recognizes the top lawyers in Texas via a patented multiphase selection process involving peer nomination, independent research and peer evaluation. The Texas lawyers who receive the highest point totals during this selection process are further recognized in Texas Super Lawyers Top Lists.

Get Your Free Case Review 713.587.9668

Let Us Help You Today! Request a Free Consultation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

Firm News & Updates

  • $50+ Million Personal Injury Fire and Explosion

    The firm successfully represented nearly 100 victims who suffered personal injuries and damages to property from a large fire and explosion resulting in a settlement of more than $50 million. The firm served as lead lawyers on the steering committee in this litigation.

  • $80 Million Personal Injury Large Plant Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 270 plaintiffs', taking a lead role in the plaintiffs' steering committee, who suffered injuries in a large plant explosion resulting in a settlement of nearly $80 million.

  • $50+ Million Personal Injury Plant Fire and Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 45 personal injury victims in a plant fire and explosion, serving on the plaintiffs' steering committee, concluding with a settlement of more than $50 million.

  • $22+ Million Personal Injury Work Site Accident

    The firm prevailed in a personal injury trial for a worksite injury client with the jury returning a verdict and resulting in a judgment of over $22 million for the firm's client.

  • $12 Million Auto Accident 18-Wheeler Collision

    The firm successfully achieved a $12 million settlement for the family of a man who died in an 18 wheeler collision.

  • $30 Million Personal Injury Burn Victims

    The firm prevailed on behalf of three burn victims with settlements totaling nearly $30 million.

Our Record Of Success.

When you are hurt and you choose a law firm to represent you in court or at the negotiation table, you need to carefully consider the firm's record.

More Success Stories