You are correct. There are two sub-paragraphs lettered “c” in the defenses section of the answer. Must be a typo. I only pasted one. Here is the second c which contains what appears to be the comparative part you are referring to.
I’m guessing that is sort of standard fare to claim the plaintiff is to some degree responsible for their own damages?
c. Plaintiff failed, in whole or in part, to mitigate Plaintiff’s damages, if any. Peaktastic is not responsible for damages, if any, resulting from the failure of Plaintiff to act with ordinary prudence to eliminate or reduce the effects of Plaintiff’s damages, if any.
It is. Another affirmative defense is voluntary and unreasonable assumption of a known risk. If the state is correct, that all bikers affiliated with Bandidos or Cossacks (directly or indirectly) are conspirators to murder and aggravated assault, then Rodriguez knew he was riding to a rumble.
The paragraph you excerpted rings of comparative negligence, "failure to act with ordinary prudence." Assumption of the risk is to voluntarily and unreasonably engage in conduct, while knowing the magnitude of injury that is in play. This is a highly "it depends" inquiry on whether riding is reasonable, but I think is a slam dunk in favor of defendant if plaintiff is riding to participate in a rumble.