BA 503 Weekly Problem Set 2: Negligence and Strict Liability
TEAM WEEKLY MODULE PROBLEM SET 2
Ryan Anderson, Erik Bare, Steven Kitchen, Daniel Stewart and Tamara Wogen
Washington State University
BA 503 Foundations In Business Law
Kalvin N. Joshi, Esq., J.D.
NEGLIGENCE AND STRICT LIABILITY
1. What defense will Ragged Mountain probably assert?
As the plaintiff voluntarily entered into a hazardous situation, aware of the inherent risk and danger involved, Ragged Mountain can assert the affirmative defense of assumption of risk. While no employees of Ragged Mountain were present the plaintiff still entered into the activity knowing there was a likelihood of damage or injury. (Clarkson, Miller & Cross, 2014)
2. The central question in this case is whether the state statute establishing that skiers assume the risks inherent in the sport bars Alaina’s suit. What would your decision be on this issue? Why?
As this is a foreseeable risk, it is safe to assume that a reasonable person engaging in ‘snow-tubing’ would anticipate the risk and guard against it. Ragged Mountain Resort however, also has a duty of care to the plaintiff regardless of what the state legislature of New Hampshire defines as “sport of skiing”. While the plaintiff entered into the activity voluntarily, due to the unique nature of snow-tubing, Ragged Mountain failed to comply with the duty to exercise reasonable care. (Clarkson, Miller & Cross, 2014) An attendant should have been available to disclose rules & regulations of the snow-tube course. The New Hampshire state statute specifically states that ski-area operators are held harmless from injury associated with activities in the sport of skiing. The plaintiff was injured while utilizing a snow-tube, specifically designed for use on a dedicated snow-tube course. The statute does not specifically define snow-tubing, and therefore the plaintiff’s suit should not be dismissed based on RSA 225-A:24, I. (Sweeney v. Ragged, 2003)
3. Suppose that the court
Ryan Anderson, Erik Bare, Steven Kitchen, Daniel Stewart and Tamara Wogen
Washington State University
BA 503 Foundations In Business Law
Kalvin N. Joshi, Esq., J.D.
NEGLIGENCE AND STRICT LIABILITY
1. What defense will Ragged Mountain probably assert?
As the plaintiff voluntarily entered into a hazardous situation, aware of the inherent risk and danger involved, Ragged Mountain can assert the affirmative defense of assumption of risk. While no employees of Ragged Mountain were present the plaintiff still entered into the activity knowing there was a likelihood of damage or injury. (Clarkson, Miller & Cross, 2014)
2. The central question in this case is whether the state statute establishing that skiers assume the risks inherent in the sport bars Alaina’s suit. What would your decision be on this issue? Why?
As this is a foreseeable risk, it is safe to assume that a reasonable person engaging in ‘snow-tubing’ would anticipate the risk and guard against it. Ragged Mountain Resort however, also has a duty of care to the plaintiff regardless of what the state legislature of New Hampshire defines as “sport of skiing”. While the plaintiff entered into the activity voluntarily, due to the unique nature of snow-tubing, Ragged Mountain failed to comply with the duty to exercise reasonable care. (Clarkson, Miller & Cross, 2014) An attendant should have been available to disclose rules & regulations of the snow-tube course. The New Hampshire state statute specifically states that ski-area operators are held harmless from injury associated with activities in the sport of skiing. The plaintiff was injured while utilizing a snow-tube, specifically designed for use on a dedicated snow-tube course. The statute does not specifically define snow-tubing, and therefore the plaintiff’s suit should not be dismissed based on RSA 225-A:24, I. (Sweeney v. Ragged, 2003)
3. Suppose that the court
Citations: Clarkson, K., Miller, R. & Cross, F. (2014). Business law : text and cases. (13th ed.) Stamford, CT: Cengage. Alien’s Actions for Torts, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (1940) Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (1980) SWEENEY v. RAGGED MOUNTAIN SKI AREA INC, 146 N.H. 495,496 (2003)