Assumption of risk unlikely to be a viable defense for preliminary objections.

The plaintiff in this matter alleged that he was harassed and assaulted by a deranged man while mentoring a student in the defendant restaurant, and he repeatedly requested help from the restaurant staff, which was ignored. The claims against the restaurant were dismissed on preliminary objections, with the trial court finding the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty based on assumption of risk and public policy grounds. 

The Superior Court reversed, holding that the only facts that can be evaluated for the assumption of risk defense are those explicitly pled in the complaint, and the complaint did not allege that the plaintiff was aware of any danger of being assaulted that he willingly disregarded. 

As exemplified by this ruling, early dismissal on assumption of risk grounds is extremely difficult to achieve as a rational plaintiff is unlikely to plead any elements of the defense in his complaint.
 

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2032 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}