But in order to clarify matters further, consider the following explicit exception to the rule: the doctrine of inherent compulsion.
"What's that?" you ask.
Basically, it means that if the plaintiff (such as a child) is compelled to participate in an activity - and feels that s/he has no choice in the matter, then the assumption of the risk doctrine will not apply. And the reason for this is relatively straightforward: assumption of the risk inherently calls for a voluntary assumption of the risk of the activity; therefore, it stands to reason that if the plaintiff is forced to perform the activity, a critical element to the assumption of risk defense is lacking.
Bringing this down to a practical level, in order to establish inherent compulsion, the plaintiff is required to prove the following:
(1) a direction by a superior to do the act; and,
(2) "economic compulsion or other circumstance which equally impels the actor to comply with the direction given."
