placing oneself in a position to chance known hazards. To find that plaintiff Vera L. Wagner assumed the risk you must find: 1. That she had knowledge of the risk. 2. That she appreciated the risk. 3. That she had a choice to avoid the risk or chance it and voluntarily chose to chance it. Assumption of risk has two viable and distinct concepts. In Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 24, 192 N.W.2d 826, 827 (1971), the supreme court articulated the distinctions between primary and secondary assumption of risk. Primary assumption of risk, express or implied, relates to the initial issue of whether a defendant was negligent at all — that is, whether the defendant had any duty to protect the plaintiff from a risk of harm. See also Armstrong v. Mailand, 284 N.W.2d 343, 348-49 (Minn.1979) (<HOLDING>). Secondary assumption of risk is a question of
recognizing doctrine recognizing a challenge to jurisdiction as a viable claim recognizing connecticut general statute  52572hi and state case law had eliminated doctrine of assumption of risk holding that assumption of the risk is not an available defense for civil battery recognizing primary assumption of risk as a viable doctrine