What type of defenses are typically accepted in negligence lawsuits?

In a negligence lawsuit, defenses that are typically accepted play a significant role in determining liability and the potential outcomes of a case. Intervening causes and assumption of risk are well-established defenses in these situations.

Intervening causes refer to events that occur after the defendant's negligent act and contribute to the harm experienced by the plaintiff. If it can be shown that an intervening cause breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injury, the defendant may not be held liable. This underscores the principle that liability is contingent on direct causation.

Assumption of risk involves situations where the plaintiff knowingly engages in activities that involve a risk of injury, effectively agreeing to accept those risks. If the defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff was aware of the risk and voluntarily chose to proceed anyway, it can negate or diminish the defendant’s liability. This principle recognizes personal responsibility and informed decision-making in the context of potentially hazardous situations.

The other options, while they contain relevant concepts in the broader field of tort law, do not specifically align with accepted defenses in negligence cases as directly as intervening causes and assumption of risk do.