To Bar Plaintiff’s Recovery in Strict Liability, Conduct After the Discovery of a Defect Must Amount Only to a Voluntary Encounter of the Risk

Observes the problems that arise when defendants use assumption of the risk as a defense in cases where it was reasonable for the plaintiff to continue to use the product. By adopting the version of the defense of assumption of the risk that entirely excludes the element of reasonableness, the Henderson court unreasonably has limited that protection. The author contends that the courts should abolish the term assumption of risk and merely determine whether plaintiff is barred from recovery.