Opinion ID: 2624037
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Waiver of Affirmative Defense

Text: ¶ 15 Beaupre also contends that Pierce County waived any application of the professional rescue doctrine by not specifically raising it in its answer and failing to disclose its reliance on the doctrine in response to Beaupre's discovery requests. Br. of Resp't at 16-17. Under CR 8(c), parties must raise affirmative defenses or risk waiving them altogether. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Miller, 87 Wash.2d 70, 76, 549 P.2d 9 (1976). Although CR 8(c) specifically delineates 20 affirmative defenses, parties must also affirmatively plead any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. ¶ 16 Pierce County raised the affirmative defense of assumption of risk and contends that pleading assumption of risk sufficiently raised the professional rescue doctrine. [3] Malgarini v. Wash. Jockey Club, 60 Wash.App. 823, 826, 807 P.2d 901 (1991) (holding that raising discretionary immunity as an affirmative defense was sufficient to raise the affirmative defense of quasi-judicial immunity where the issue was well-briefed and there was no doubt that the plaintiff had notice of the defense). Beaupre contends that pleading assumption of risk was insufficient to put him on notice as to the professional rescue doctrine. He contends that the first mention of the doctrine was at summary judgment. ¶ 17 We have previously discussed professional rescue doctrine in terms of assumption of risk. Maltman, 84 Wash.2d at 978, 530 P.2d 254 (In the case of a professional rescuer certain hazards are assumed which are not assumed by a voluntary rescuer.). Further, the professional rescue doctrine is essentially a type of implied primary assumption of the risk. Scott v. Pac. W. Mountain Resort, 119 Wash.2d 484, 496-99, 834 P.2d 6 (1992) (listing the four types of assumption of risk and describing implied primary assumption of the risk as a situation where an individual assumes the risks inherent in an activity); see Vroegh v. J & M Forklift, 165 Ill.2d 523, 530, 651 N.E.2d 121, 209 Ill.Dec. 193 (1995) (describing fireman's rule as an implied primary assumption of risk whether an owner or occupier of land has any duty to fire fighters injured). Because we have recognized the professional rescue doctrine as an assumption of risk, we hold that Pierce County's assertion of assumption of risk in its answer was sufficient to raise the professional rescue doctrine under CR 8(c).