Should Li Can Be Held Liable Under The Law Of Nebigence?

There is a issues in the current case which need to be solved. The issue is if Li can be held liable for the injuries suffered by Paul Henri. Paul Henri is diagnosed with a concussion by playing barrel rolling operating by Li when he was looking to get some more excitement in his life. Therefore, the question arises if it can be established that Li is liable under the law of negligence for the injuries suffered by Paul Henri. For this purpose, it need to be seen if Li had taken all reasonable steps due to which the people may be prevented from playing.
The legal issue is whether Paul Henri can successfully sue Janet Li for negligence. In order to know whether the defendant commit negligence or not, 4 elements must be satisfied, including
b) Unrecognized DoC
Rule: Base on Atkin's NeighbourTest, to prove that the defendant (Li) owed the plaintiff (Paul Henri) a duty of care , we must prove that at the time of Li's careless act, the consequences caused by that careless act were reasonably foreseeable and directly related to the plaintiff (Donoghue v. Stevenson).
Application: In this case, it is reasonable foresee that there would be high risk that the conduct would be likely cause physical harm to the class of people which Paul Henri belongs to. That is supported by the fact that Li was aware of the situation that people left their trash on the hill and periodically cleaned up the trash. However, garbage had not been taken away. for about a month. Moreover, Paul Henri is people using Li’s property. Unluckily, because of Li's careless leading to injuries physical - concussion for Henri. Therefore, it can be seen that Paul Henri is as a neighbor of Li's careless. In another word, Li's careless act will closely and directly cause harm to Paul Henri.
Conclusion: Therefore, we conclude that Li owed Paul Henri a duty of care for physical
The Defendant has to take a responsibility if the accident happened in their area or property. Additionally, the Plaintiff also negligence in their action lead to the damage so they also have a duty to themselves.If Plaintiff contributed in some way to their own loss or injury, liability will be appropriated between defendant and the plaintiff (Ingram v Britten)

Application: Did the Henri also do something negligence? Yes, when Henri finished the second slides he thought that he was okay and still want to take another slide, that means he ignored his safety to continued to play the last slide. Henri's negligence contributed to his injuries because he can stop playing after the second slide, his dizzy and sickness may not happen if Henri did not take the last chance in steeper hills. Besides, Li also warned Henri of the unpredictable of steeper hills but Henri still ignores whatever Li said

Conclusion: Therefore, the assumption of risk and Contributory negligence are satisfied so Henri was contributory to his damage, the court should divide up the liability for both Henri and Li with 50/50 for both of