Opinion ID: 2326886
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Assumption of the Risk and Causation

Text: The respondent argues that even if he did assume the risks inherent to the sport, he did not assume the enhanced risk that arose as a result of the alleged negligent training of the spotters. This analysis is misguided because it focuses on the wrong risk. In order to properly determine which risk is relevant or material to the assumption of the risk analysis, we must look to the immediate cause of the injury. See Imbraguglio v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 358 Md. 194, 214, 747 A.2d 662, 673 (2000) (finding that the relevant issue is whether the petitioner assumed the risk that was the immediate cause of his death). See also Wertheim v. U.S. Tennis Ass'n, 150 A.D.2d 157, 540 N.Y.S.2d 443 (1989) (holding that a linesman's injuries from being hit by a tennis ball were not the proximate result of the Tennis Association's failure to protect him, and since the risk of being hit by a tennis ball was obvious, the linesman assumed the risk of injury). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, in this case the respondent, we can assume, arguendo, that the spotters were negligently trained. Even granted that assumption, there is no genuine dispute that the immediate cause of Mr. Cotillo's injuries was his own failure to lift the weight successfully. The relevant question, therefore, is whether Mr. Cotillo assumed the risk of injury when he tried to lift a 530 pound weight. We hold, as a matter of law, that he did. As we recently noted, the defense of assumption of the risk operates independently of the conduct of another person. Morgan State University v. Walker, 397 Md. 509, 521, 919 A.2d 21, 28 (2007). The very nature of an assumption of the risk defense is that by virtue of the plaintiff's voluntary actions, any duty the defendant owed the plaintiff to act reasonably for the plaintiff's safety is superseded by the plaintiff's willingness to take a chance. Schroyer v. McNeal, 323 Md. 275, 282, 592 A.2d 1119, 1123(1991). As in Morgan State University, we can assume for the sake of argument that the APA was negligent in failing to prevent Mr. Cotillo's injury. Morgan State University, 397 Md. at 521, 919 A.2d 21. Nevertheless, just as a similar assumption did not change the analysis in Morgan State University, it does not change our analysis in the case sub judice. Id. That the petitioners may have been negligent in failing to prevent an injury is irrelevant where the respondent suffered the very type of injury that any person of normal intelligence would expect might result from the plaintiff's actions. The relevant inquiry, therefore, is not whether Mr. Cotillo could have anticipated that the spotters would be negligently trained, but whether he could anticipate the risk that the lift bar would fall and injure him. We hold as a matter of law that he did.