The assignment for this week is simply to discuss your thoughts about Sugarman's "Assumption of Risk" paper and the assumption of risk doctrine generally. Is it clear (in theory and practice) how the elements and defenses of a negligence lawsuit interact? Is Sugarman persuasive that the assumption of risk doctrine serves no useful role in modern courts? This may seem theoretical, but issues like this do significantly shape litigation and the way that lawyers think about tort law. As a test case to consider, should someone who intentionally runs into a burning building in order to rescue a child be able to sue the person who negligently set the building on fire if the rescuer gets injured