What is the current state of the law on assumption of risk?

With this background in mind, we conclude the papers presented to the trial court at Milwaukee's motion for summary adjudication disclose that triable issues of fact remain as to Vondrasek's subjective appreciation of the nature of the risk that he encountered in using the product, and the extent of his voluntary consent to relieve Milwaukee from either a duty of care to him regarding the product, or liability for any injury he might sustain in using the product. The issue of assumption of the risk is a factual question for the jury. (Baker v. Chrysler Corp., supra, 55 Cal.App.3d at p. 717, 127 Cal.Rptr. 745.) Moreover, as noted by the authors of the Restatement Second of Torts section 496C, comment h, "The basis of assumption of risk is consent to accept the risk. In order for assumption of risk to be implied ... it must be such as fairly to indicate that the plaintiff is willing to take his chances. Implied consent is consent which exists in fact, but is manifested by conduct rather than by words." (Ibid.) The authors continue, "Since the interpretation of conduct is seldom so clearly indicated that reasonable men could not differ as to the conclusion, it is ordinarily a question for the jury whether what the plaintiff has done is a manifestation of willingness to accept the risk." (Ibid.)