Does assumption of risk apply to non injury situations?

Question

I had a friend use my car to drive me to my business 25 miles away from where I live, 3 days a week, due to an injury. Once a week to grocery store, and twice to a show in downtown Cleveland from northern Akron. He was not charged to use it. I maintained the car payments and insurance. In exchange he had use of the car for going to his work, food delivery, ride sharing, odd jobs and what other personal things he needed (Cedar Point). He had to replace two tires and a battery during the 6 months he had use of the car. He says that I knew about these items at the time he took over driving and expects me to compensate him. Do I? Does assuming the risk apply here?

Tim Akpinar · Answer

I agree with my colleague - "Assumption of Risk" is a doctrine more commonly applied in tort cases involving injuries with activities that involve an element of danger. Resolution of the matter could depend largely on your friendship. Good luck

James L. Arrasmith · Answer

It seems like your arrangement with your friend was informal and based on a mutual understanding. Since he was using the car for both your benefit and his personal use, it might be reasonable to say he took on some responsibility for maintenance. If you didn’t specifically agree to cover the costs of the tires and battery, he may not have a strong basis for demanding compensation, especially if these were necessary for his own driving needs. 
 
"Assumption of risk" usually applies to situations where someone voluntarily takes on a known hazard, typically involving personal injury. In your case, it's more about whether both of you understood the responsibilities involved in using the car. If the agreement didn't specify who would handle certain expenses, it might come down to whether it was reasonable to expect him to cover those costs as part of maintaining the car while he was using it. 
 
It might help to clarify what you both agreed to at the start. If he knew about the condition of the car and accepted it, he may have implicitly agreed to cover these expenses. If no clear agreement was made, you might try negotiating a fair solution that acknowledges both sides.

Q: Does assumption of risk apply to non injury situations?