injuria do not apply because Defendant’s calls were not a known or obvious danger when she purchased the cell phones. (Id. at 6-7.) Initially, the Court finds that the affirmative defenses of assumption of the risk and volenti non fit injuria do not apply to the TCPA. Defendant is correct that courts have applied common law principles to the TCPA. See, e.g., Gager, 727 F.3d at 270 (finding that the common law principle of revocation applied because “[although the TCPA does hot expressly grant a right of revocation to consumers who no longer wish to be contacted on their cellular phones by autodialing systems, the absence of an express statutory grant of this right does not mean that the right to revoke does not exist”); Thomas v. Taco Bell Corp., 879 F.Supp.2d 1079, 1084 (C.D.Cal.2012) (<HOLDING>). However, courts have not yet addressed
holding that the common law principle of vicarious liability applied to the tcpa because absent a clear expression of congressional intent to apply another standard the court must presume that congress intended to apply the traditional standards of vicarious liability with which it is presumed to be familiar holding that no expert reports specifically addressing conduct of professional corporation and professional association were required when plaintiffs alleged only vicarious liability based on medical negligence of entities physicians explaining that the entities conduct is not measured by a medical standard of care but rather their liability was solely vicarious holding that apparent authority as a separate theory of vicarious liability should not be considered in ftca claims recognizing common law right to indemnity when a partys liability is vicarious holding that vicarious coconspirator liability need not be charged in the indictment