Opinion ID: 1776471
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: A. Assumption of the risk

Text: Attalla argues that the trial court should have granted its motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because, Attalla says, it presented evidence requiring a finding that Harris assumed the risk by riding in the car with Baker, if Baker was indeed intoxicated. Assumption of the risk proceeds from the injured person's actual awareness of the risk. McIsaac v. Monte Carlo Club, Inc., 587 So.2d 320, 324 (Ala.1991). The plaintiff's state of mind is determined by using the subjective standard; the important issue is whether the plaintiff actually knew the risk, not whether the plaintiff should have known the risk. Id. Harris presented evidence that she was not with Baker much of the night at the club and that she was unaware of Baker's intoxication. In order to prove that Harris assumed the risk, Attalla must prove to the jury that Harris actually knew that Baker was intoxicated. The parties presented conflicting testimony, and the jury, as the factfinder, found that Harris did not have actual knowledge of Baker's intoxication, and, therefore, could not have assumed the risk.