What defense against negligence is likely used by an amusement park if a rider gets injured after knowing the risks of a ride?

The defense of assumption of risk is particularly relevant in cases where individuals are aware of the inherent dangers associated with an activity but choose to participate anyway. In the context of an amusement park, if a rider is injured after being informed of the risks involved with a specific ride, the park can invoke this defense by demonstrating that the rider voluntarily accepted those risks.

This principle rests on the understanding that individuals have a responsibility for their actions and choices. By knowingly participating in an activity that includes certain risks, such as riding a roller coaster, the individual may be considered to have assumed those risks. This defense can help the amusement park mitigate liability, as it suggests that the injured party cannot claim damages from the park for injuries sustained when they chose to engage in an activity they knew was potentially hazardous.

In contrast, contributory negligence and comparative negligence relate to the degree of fault of the injured party concerning the accident, focusing more on whether the rider's actions contributed to their injury. The intervening cause refers to an outside event that disrupts the chain of causation, which wouldn't be the primary focus when discussing the rider’s decisions and knowledge of the risks prior to the injury.