Question

While snowboarding down a slope at Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (Mammoth), 17-year-old David Graham was engaged in a snowball fight with his 14-year-old brother. As he was "preparing to throw a snowball" at his brother, David slammed into Liam Madigan, who was working as a ski school instructor for Mammoth, and injured him. Madigan sued Graham for damages for reckless and dangerous behavior. The defense contended that the claim was barred under the doctrine of assumption of the risk, applicable in the state, arising from the risk inherent in the sport that allows for vigorous participation and frees a participant from a legal duty to act with due care. Decide. [Mammoth Mountain Ski Area v. Graham, 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 422 (Cal. App.)]

Answer 1

Graham's defense is incorrect.

Step-by-step explanation:

An expression used in this case was “inherent risk”, which establishes the hypothesis of anomalies and errors that compromise any activity and should be seen as an anticipation of what may not work. When planning an activity, you need to be aware of the risks of that activity to achieve the intended goal without obstacles that may interfere with the process required to achieve the goal.

According to Graham's defense there was an inherent risk that covers the snowboard that Graham is practicing and was ignored by Madigan, so Graham is not guilty of any charges. However, the inherent risk of sport does not include snowballing, as Graham was doing. For this reason, we can say that Graham was being negligent and distracted while throwing snowballs. This negligence caused the accident that hurt Madigan, so Graham is guilty and Madigan should be compensated.