## Facts

- Gregory Murray dove into the shallow end of a motel swimming pool in Shreveport, Louisiana, suffered catastrophic injuries, became quadriplegic, and later died.
- Survivors sued the motel entities and an insurer for damages.
- Evidence indicated the pool had no lifeguard on duty and lacked “no diving” warnings for the shallow end, contrary to Louisiana Sanitary Code provisions.
- A federal district court jury found the pool was operated in an unreasonably dangerous manner and also found Murray negligent.
- The jury allocated 50% comparative fault to Murray and awarded damages to each plaintiff reduced by that percentage.
- Defendants requested a jury instruction that Murray assumed the risk and therefore could not recover; the trial court refused.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit certified to the Louisiana Supreme Court the question whether assumption of risk remains a total bar to recovery or instead only reduces recovery under Louisiana’s comparative fault statute.

## Issues

1. Whether assumption of risk remains a complete defense barring recovery in Louisiana after adoption of comparative fault.
2. Whether the treatment of assumption of risk differs depending on whether liability is based on negligence or strict liability.
3. How plaintiff conduct historically labeled “assumption of risk” should be analyzed under Louisiana tort doctrine.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court answered that assumption of risk does not serve as a total bar to recovery in a negligence case.
- The court further held that assumption of risk should not operate as a total bar regardless of whether the defendant is found negligent or strictly liable.
- Plaintiff conduct formerly described as assumption of risk is generally addressed through comparative fault allocation under Louisiana law, reducing damages rather than barring recovery.
- The court noted that outcomes in certain situations may still favor defendants, but through contract enforcement (express releases) or duty analysis (no breach of duty), not a freestanding implied assumption-of-risk bar.

## Legal Principles

- Under Louisiana comparative fault (La. Civ. Code art. 2323), contributory negligence does not bar recovery; it reduces damages in proportion to the plaintiff’s fault.
- Most “assumption of risk” arguments involve conduct that is functionally contributory negligence and should be evaluated exclusively through comparative fault principles.
- Express waivers or releases, when valid, are governed by contract principles and may defeat recovery without relying on assumption-of-risk doctrine.
- In “inherent” or “virtually unpreventable” risk settings, the proper analysis is whether the defendant owed and breached a duty under Louisiana’s duty–risk framework, rather than barring recovery based on implied assumption of risk.
- The rejection of implied assumption of risk as a total bar applies in both negligence and strict liability contexts; plaintiff conduct is handled through comparative fault and duty–risk analysis.

## Conclusion

Louisiana law does not recognize implied assumption of risk as an independent, all-or-nothing defense in negligence or strict liability; instead, plaintiff risk-taking is generally treated as comparative fault reducing damages, while defendant-favorable results may rest on express contract releases or the absence of a breached duty.


Murray v. Ramada Inns, Inc., 521 So. 2d 1123 (La. 1988)