Opinion ID: 1599564
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: This case involves the issue of whether the assumption-of-risk doctrine, a defense available in a personal-injury action, is also available in a spouse's loss-of-consortium action. This Court concludes that permitting its availability would be consistent with established Mississippi case law. In reaching this conclusion, this Court is cognizant of the seemingly- unquestionable viability of the assumption-of-risk doctrine in actions involving a sports injury and the questionable viability of the doctrine in actions involving a non-sports injury. Compare G. SCHUBERT, R. SMITH & J. TRENTADUE, SPORTS LAW § 7.4(A)(9), at 230 (1986) (contending that the doctrine is firmly rooted in sports law), with Harold v. Rolling J Ranch, 266 Cal. Rptr. 734, 218 Cal. App.3d 36, 218 Cal. App.3d 841A (1990) (noting that some states have decided to retain the doctrine, while others have either placed significant limitations on the doctrine or have altogether abolished it or allowed it to be subsumed by another doctrine such as comparative negligence). Accordingly, this opinion should be construed as potentially applying only to actions involving the assumption-of-risk doctrine and a sports injury. One day, the right case or cases will require ultimate disposition of whether the doctrine itself should remain partially or wholly viable and available under all, some, or no circumstance(s).
On April 28, 1984, driver Joe T. Byrd (Joe) lost control of his car and spun out during a race at Jackson International Speedway. At that point, driver Bobby Glen Matthews struck Joe's car and, as a consequence, Joe incurred injuries. Joe subsequently filed a personal-injury action in Rankin County Circuit Court against Matthews and Allstate Insurance (Joe's uninsured motorist carrier). Presiding Judge Alfred Nichols ultimately directed a verdict in the defendants' favor after concluding that Joe's signing of a Release-and-Waiver-of-Liability-and-Indemnity agreement, as well as the assumption-of-risk doctrine, constituted a complete defense. Joe did not appeal; the judgment is final. Subsequent to the dismissal, Joe's wife, Patricia, filed an action against Matthews and Allstate for loss of consortium. This action was also dismissed via directed verdict. Judge Robert L. Goza based his decision on Patricia's failure to establish facts upon which [Joe] could recover. Goza explained that Patricia failed ... because the risk to which [Joe] was exposed was a foreseeable risk[, a]nd willing participants in a hazardous activity ... assume the ordinary and foreseeable risk incident to that activity. Judge Goza did not base his decision on Joe's signing of the Release-and-Waiver-of-Liability-and-Indemnity agreement. In reaching his decision, the judge premised: Although the release itself ... is not a bar per se of Mrs. Byrd's claim, nevertheless Mrs. Byrd must establish facts upon which Mr. Byrd could recover, absent the release.  Restated, Judge Goza concluded that the assumption-of-risk doctrine  applicable in Joe's negligence action  constituted a defense applicable in Patricia's consortium action. Patricia appealed and presented numerous issues, only one of which is reached: Whether an affirmative defense available in a personal-injury action is available in the other family member's action for loss of consortium?