運動傷害事件有別於其他侵權行為事件之處在於被害人之自甘冒險，此導致責任論斷之困難。就違法性之判斷言，美國與德國法之自甘冒險理論於我國民法上尚難直接適用；而單以「得被害人之允諾」作為運動傷害行為之阻卻違法事由似非妥適，蓋被害人雖自甘冒險但未必有允諾受害之意思，當事人間亦未必有允諾之表示與受領，且適用上有重傷與死亡結果除外之侷限性。本文認為運動雖具危險性，但依社會通念認為係當代社會生活所不可或缺，於綜合考量運動進行之方式與目的、運動者與被害人間之關係、危險實現之蓋然性、受侵害法益之性質與程度等，倘認定該運動傷害行為具備「社會相當性」，且運動者已遵守運動規則並於運動時盡其應有注意而仍造成他人傷害時，即屬「可容許之危險」而非不法。就不具備阻卻違法事由之運動傷害事件言，被害人之自甘冒險舉動不影響加害人之有責性審查，且該舉動本身難謂有何過失，惟倘被害人明知或可得而知已置身於危險中，而仍疏於處理自己事務程度之注意因而受傷，即屬我民法第217條第1、2項所稱之與有過失。釐清運動傷害事件中運動者對他人人身侵害民事責任之論斷基礎，不僅有其學術意義，且隨著國人參與休閒運動型態之改變，未來應更有實用之價值。

That fact that most of the persons got injured in sports event, in which he realized the risks and nevertheless voluntarily participated, makes sports injury event so unique to tort events and so complicated when inquiring the civil liability imposed on the exerciser.The most disputed issue is what will be the best defense of exerciser who injured others. The ”assumption of risk theory” and the derived ”intentional-reckless doctrine” and ”inherent risk doctrine” commonly, though not unanimously, applied in common law to bar the claim or recovery by the injured party, might not be readily applicable to the tort fabric in our civil law. For those who realized the risks in some kind of sports and nevertheless voluntarily participated in or speculated nearby did not necessarily express or imply that they would like to assume the risks herein, and even they assumed, the risks exempt, by our civil law, the categories of death and heavily wounded situation, which are not uncommon in sports injured events. Moreover, in certain sports, the injured co-participant or speculator did not always have the chance to express or imply his willingness to the assumption of risks time before he got injured. And all these indicate that the old doctrine ”one who consents cannot receive an injury”, the ”assumption of risk” and theory of a kind might not be a good defense for the exerciser injured others during exercise.This article advocated that ”permissible risk theory” might serve as a good defense, and hold that the exerciser owed no duty to protect others from risks only when if the duty imposed would require that an integral part of the sport be abandoned, or would discourage vigorous participation in sporting events, and as a matter of policy, the risks would be permissible by the contemporary society after weighting material factors including the specific game involved, the ages and physical attributes of the parties, their respective skills at the game and their knowledge of its rules and customs, their status as amateurs or professionals, the type of risks which inhere in the game and those which are outside the realm of reasonable anticipation, the presence or absence of protective uniforms or equipment, the degree of zest with which the game is being played. Meanwhile, it will be comparative negligence if the injured person who realized the risks and nevertheless voluntarily participated in or speculated nearby failed to exercise ordinary care for the safety of himself.