human being who had little chance of living, and if so, could go through whatever life it had deformed and maimed.” Id. Similarly, Defendants also assert the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, i.e., “rational people with full knowledge of the hazards entailed who choose to engage in [a] dangerous undertaking must assume personal responsibility therefore.” Id. at 31 (citing Zachardy v. Geneva College, 733 A.2d 648 (Pa.Super.1999)). Defendants argue that if the doctrine is not applied, their accountability will be unlimited, “and [Plaintiffs] assume no personal responsibility.” Brief for Appellants at 31. We acknowledge the continuing vitality of the assumption of risk doctrine remains in doubt. Zeidman v. Fisher, 980 A.2d 637, 640 (Pa.Super.2009); see also Montagazzi, 994 A.2d at 635 (<HOLDING>). Regardless, “the question of assumption of
holding that duty to protect from criminal acts does not arise in the absence of a foreseeable risk of harm recognizing that the assumption of the risk operates merely as a corollary of the absence of a duty recognizing primary assumption of risk as a viable doctrine recognizing that fiduciary liability requires not onlya repose of trust but an assumption of a duty and breach of that duty holding that assumption of the risk is not an available defense for civil battery