생활체육사고에서의 민사상 사회적 상당성과 위험인수법리의 적용에 관한 연구 ― 미국 위험인수법리의 전개를 중심으로 ―

With the expansion of recreational sports, the issue of civil liability for accidents occurring during sports activities has emerged as an important legal concern. Sports activities inherently involve risks, making it difficult to directly apply the general standards of tort liability. Courts have adjusted the scope of liability using social adequacy and the assumption of risk doctrine, but the application criteria remain unclear. This study aims to theoretically reestablish the judgment structure of civil liability in recreational sports accidents and derive comparative legal implications by analyzing the development process and major cases of the assumption of risk doctrine that has evolved in American law. To this end, the study examines the general structure of torts under civil law and the concept of social adequacy, analyzing specific factors where social adequacy applies in recreational sports accidents, such as the characteristics of the sport, compliance with rules, participant skill levels, and the roles of facilities and instructors. Regarding the assumption of risk doctrine, the study outlines the distinction between express and implied assumption of risk and their relationship with social adequacy. In particular, the study reviews the development of the assumption of risk doctrine in American law through major cases. The Crane case (1913) established the Baseball Rule; baseball sliding cases in the 1970s provided the impetus for introducing the comparative negligence system; the Turcotte case (1986) clarified the scope of inherent risk assumption for professional athletes; and the Knight case (1992) structured risk assumption into primary and secondary assumption of risk. Based on this analysis, the study reconstructs the application structure for recreational sports accidents. First, social adequacy serves as the primary filter, negating illegality for conduct within the scope of inherent sports risks. Second, assumption of risk and comparative negligence serve as the secondary filter to adjust the scope of liability, with assumption of risk utilized as an element of comparative negligence. Third, differentiated standards should be applied according to participant types, with a narrower recognition of risk assumption for vulnerable groups and strengthened duty of care for facilities and instructors. Institutionally, the study proposes systematizing risk disclosure systems, establishing standard guidelines by sport type, activating insurance systems, accumulating accident statistics, and promoting ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) systems. This study systematically establishes the dual filter structure of social adequacy and assumption of risk doctrine in determining civil liability for recreational sports accidents, and confirms through the development of American case law that the assumption of risk doctrine is not a fixed legal principle but a flexible doctrine that must be continuously adjusted according to social needs and notions of fairness.