http://mises.org/community/forums/71.aspxenCommunityServer 2008.5 SP2 (Build: 40407.4157)http://mises.org/community/forums/thread/96991.aspxThu, 05 Mar 2009 21:16:53 GMT944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:96991Deist0http://mises.org/community/forums/thread/96991.aspxhttp://mises.org/community/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=71&PostID=96991<p>I have been looking everywhere for a simple explanation of how the&nbsp; common law&nbsp;doctrine of assumption of risk was structured in workplace and employee/employer situations before it was abolished as a defense in those scenarios.&nbsp; The employer could still be held liable for negligence that was soley their own fault (contributory negligence prevented anyone who contributed to their own problem from recovery) but I am just curious if someone could give me some sort of example of where assumption of risk would apply.</p> <p>It seems most of classic common law prevented&nbsp;much&nbsp;litigation by allowing for far more&nbsp;doctrines that a case could be dismissed for&nbsp;before&nbsp;it went to a&nbsp;trial. Assumption of Risk in the workplace seems to have been one of those doctrines but I am having a hard time finding any clear and coherent descriptions of it.</p> <p>Anyone here know?</p><div style="clear:both;"></div>