the risk is applicable where “ ‘the plaintiff... subjectively know[s] of the existence of the risk and appreeiate[s] its unreasonable character.’ ” Jarrett v. Woodward Bros., 751 A.2d 972, 986 (D.C.2000) (internal citations omitted). By assuming the risk, the plaintiff relieves the defendant of any duty owed to the plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff asserts that the affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk are not available to defendants because defendants committed intentional torts. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hill, 139 Md.App. 308, 775 A.2d 476, 481-82 (2001) (explaining that the de fenses of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence are not applicable for intentional torts); Janelsins v. Button, 102 Md. App. 30, 648 A.2d 1039, 1044 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Defendants, however, are not alleged to have
recognizing that the assumption of the risk operates merely as a corollary of the absence of a duty holding that under maryland common law an assault is an attempted battery an actual battery or a combination of the two holding that assumption of the risk is not an available defense for civil battery holding that battery is an inherently included offense of aggravated battery recognizing primary assumption of risk as a viable doctrine