Boatright discusses the common law defense of voluntary assumption of risk within the context of a job which is already held. However, he recognizes that an employee who is coerced into accepting dangerous work conditions cannot be said to have voluntarily assumed the risks. This raises questions of coercion regarding the original acceptance of dangerous working conditions when the job was accepted. In the case of an individual who is out of work and in a dire situation regarding their ability to provide for themselves and their family, can one say that they have truly freely accepted the dangerous work conditions when they accept the position, or does it make sense to say that they have been coerced to accept those conditions due to their desperate financial position? Appeal to discussions of autonomy and Kantian ethics in defending your position.

Prepare a 600-700word response in APA 6th ed. format. Your paper must include required readings and at least two external references.