Question

David, a ten-year-old, purchased a plastic snow sled from K-Mart. He went sledding, lost control, hit a tree, and was injured. David's parents filed a negligence lawsuit in a state court against K-Mart, 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. K-Mart contended that sledding is an inherently dangerous activity and that David assumed the risks involved when he went sledding. The court probably found that K-Mart was : a. Not liable due to assumption of risk

b. Liable for selling a defective product
c. Liable for negligence in selling an unsafe sled
d. Not liable due to the inherent risks of sledding

Answer 1

The court probably found that K-Mart was not liable due to assumption of risk.

Step-by-step explanation:

The court probably found that K-Mart was not liable due to assumption of risk.

In this case, David's parents filed a negligence lawsuit against K-Mart, claiming that the store should not have sold the sled because it was unreasonably dangerous. However, K-Mart argued that sledding is inherently dangerous and that David assumed the risks involved.

Assumption of risk is a legal defense that states that a person who voluntarily participates in a risky activity is assumed to have knowledge of and accept the risks associated with that activity. In this situation, the court would likely find that David assumed the risks of sledding and, therefore, K-Mart is not liable.