Which of the following is a defense to negligence?

The concept of assumption of risk is indeed a well-recognized defense to a negligence claim. This legal doctrine posits that an individual may forfeit their right to claim damages if they voluntarily and knowingly engage in a risky activity, fully aware of the potential hazards involved. By acknowledging the risk prior to participating in the activity, the individual assumes responsibility for any resulting injuries or damages, which can effectively shield the defendant from liability.

Assumption of risk functions on the premise that the injured party had a choice and exercised that choice with an understanding of the associated dangers. For instance, if someone decides to partake in a dangerous sport or activity where risks are inherently present, such as rock climbing, they are presumed to have accepted those risks by their decision to participate.

The other options represent different concepts related to negligence:

• Res Ipsa Loquitur is a principle that allows a presumption of negligence under certain conditions, where the very nature of an accident implies negligence, but it does not serve as a defense.

• Negligence Per Se involves a violation of a statute or regulation that leads to an accident, thereby establishing negligence automatically, but again, is not a defense.

• Strict Liability pertains to liability without fault and applies in certain strict liability