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 concludes that the statute applies only to skiing and does not apply to snow tubing. Will Alaina’s lawsuit be successful? Explain.
If the statute does not apply to snow-tubing, which at the time of this case it did not, then the plaintiff’s lawsuit would not be dismissed based solely on RSA 225-A:24, I. (Sweeney v. Ragged, 2003) Whether or not the lawsuit is successful depends on several mitigating circumstances, including determining fault based on the doctrine of comparative negligence. Should the court conclude that a breach of duty of care was present, then the plaintiff may be successful in recovering damages. (Clarkson, Miller & Cross, 2014)
4. Now suppose that the jury concludes that Alaina was partly at fault for the accident. Under what theory might her damages be reduced in proportion to the degree to which her actions contributed to the accident and her resulting injuries?
Under the comparative negligence standard, both the plaintiff’s and defendant’s negligence are computed and the liability for damages are distributed accordingly. Should a jury conclude that the plaintiff was partly at fault, for example 40%, the plaintiff would be eligible for a maximum award of 60%. The comparative negligence standard reduces damages in proportion to the degree of fault. (Clarkson, Miller & Cross, 2014)
INTERNATIONAL LAW IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY
1. Should the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) preclude this lawsuit? Why or why not? The commercial activity exception of FSIA waives the immunity of the Honduran government. Since the armed forces of Honduras, a government entity, entered into a contract it therefore engaged in commercial activity with a United States company falling under the jurisdiction of United States courts. Robco can show that by this contract not being honored by the Honduran government, and forcing it to offload its arms at a much lower price, this will have a...
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)
Please join StudyMode to read the full document