Question

David, a ten-year-old, purchased a plastic snow sled from Qmart. He went sledding, lost control, hit a tree, and was injured. David’s parents filed a negligence lawsuit in a state court against Qmart, alleging that the store should not have sold this type of sled because it was difficult to steer and had no brakes, making it unreasonably dangerous. Qmart contended that sledding is an inherently dangerous activity and that David assumed the risks involved when he went sledding. The court probably found that Qmart was: a. not liable because David assumed the risks of sledding. b. liable because David did not know the risks of sledding. c. not liable because David’s injuries were unforeseeable. d. liable because sledding is unreasonable.

Answer 1

C

Step-by-step explanation:

David did not know when he woke up that morning that he would hit a tree while sledding and be ejected from the sled at Mach 3 did he? Kmart is not liable because A: no sled I've ever seen has brakes making the parent's argument null and void, and B: No one foreseen his injuries.

Answer 2

A - not liable because David assumed the risks of sledding.

When one purchases equipment for a sport or activity - one is assuming the risks of the sport (or activity)