In the News, On the Bar Exam: A Ropeless Skyscraper Climb and Assumption of the Risk
- Tommy Sangchompuphen
- 12 minutes ago
- 2 min read
Yesterday, climber Alex Honnold completed a ropeless (“free solo”) ascent of Taipei 101 as part of a Netflix-produced event—an undeniably high‑risk feat that instantly sparked the same reaction most people have when watching extreme stunts: “That is dangerous.”
I don’t know what the contractual negotiations looked like behind the scenes (permits, insurance, releases, waivers, safety protocols, etc.), including how risk and responsibility may have been allocated among the production, the venue, and any other stakeholders. I’m not even trying to guess them.
But this story is a perfect “In the News, On the Bar Exam” moment to review a doctrine that shows up constantly in Torts questions: Assumption of the risk.
A plaintiff “assumes the risk” of injury from a defendant’s negligence if the plaintiff expressly or impliedly consents to undergo the risk created by the defendant’s conduct.
To have assumed the risk—either expressly or impliedly—the plaintiff must have (1) known of the risk and (2) voluntarily assumed it.
It is irrelevant that the plaintiff’s choice is unreasonable.
Assumption of the risk isn't asking whether the plaintiff made a “smart” decision. It’s asking whether the plaintiff knew what they were getting into and chose to proceed anyway.
Of course, the bar exam often tests that assumption of risk—especially express assumption—has limits.
Common public-policy themes include:
No enforcement where it would undermine public protections. Some duties can’t be signed away when the law treats them as essential to public safety or fairness.
No enforcement where the "agreement" isn’t truly voluntary. Fraud, force, coercion, or emergency-type circumstances can defeat the idea of a voluntary assumption.
Watch for "special relationship" and regulated contexts. If the facts involve a setting where courts scrutinize exculpatory language more closely, your analysis should flag public policy.
Translation: If the exam writers hand you a waiver, they may be testing whether you can spot when it doesn’t work.
