Which of the following is NOT a typical employer defense against workplace injury claims?

The concept of "Assumption of Responsibility" is not typically recognized as a defense against workplace injury claims in the same manner as the other options listed. Traditional defenses like the Fellow Servant Rule, Assumption of Risk, and Contributory Negligence each have long-standing legal foundations that provide employers with a basis to defend against claims of workplace injuries.

The Fellow Servant Rule holds that an employer is not liable for injuries sustained by an employee if those injuries were caused by the negligence of a fellow employee. This defense acknowledges that employees assume the inherent risks of working alongside others.

Assumption of Risk refers to a situation where an employee may accept certain risks associated with their job. If an employee voluntarily engages in an activity with known dangers, they may not be entitled to compensation for injuries incurred as a result of those risks.

Contributory Negligence posits that if an employee's own negligence contributed to their injury, this can diminish or eliminate the employer's liability. This principle emphasizes the shared responsibility of both the employer and employee in maintaining safety in the workplace.

In contrast, "Assumption of Responsibility" does not have specific legal standing as a defense in workplace injury claims. While employees may bear some responsibility for their safety or decisions, the