BA 503 Team 2

Topics: Supreme Court of the United States, United States, Jurisdiction / Pages: 7 (2161 words) / Published: Jul 9th, 2015

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.


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

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)

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • UNIT 503 2
  • Ba Part-2
  • 503 Regulations
  • Fin 503 Assignment 2 1
  • unit 503
  • Mba 503 Problem Set 2
  • Problem Set 2 Mba 503
  • Unit 503
  • Unit 503
  • vsfx 503