Question

500 word answer please............. Defenses to Negligence. Neal Peterson’s entire family skied, and Peterson started skiing at the age of two. In 2000, at the age of eleven, Peterson was in his fourth year as a member of a ski race team. After a race one morning in February, Peterson continued to practice his skills through the after-noon. Coming down a slope very fast, at a point at which his skis were not touching the ground, Peterson collided with David Donahue. Donahue, a forty-three-year-old advanced skier, was skating (skiing slowly) across the slope toward the parking lot. Peterson and Donahue knew that falls or collisions and accidents and injuries were possible with skiing. Donahue saw Peterson “split seconds” before the impact, which knocked Donahue out of his skis and down the slope ten or twelve feet. When Donahue saw Peterson lying motionless nearby, he immediately sought help. To recover for his injuries, Peterson filed a suit in a Minnesota state court against Donahue, alleging negli-gence. Based on these facts, which defense to a claim of negligence is Donahue most likely to assert? How is the court likely to apply that defense and rule on Peterson’s claim? Why? [Peterson ex rel. Peterson v. Donahue, 733 N.W.2d 790 (Minn.App. 2007)]

Answer 1

Solution:-

What David could do in this case is claiming two types of negligence: proximate causation and assumption of risk. Proximate causation can apply to this case because Neal should have thought about the possible outcomes of his actions; going that fast and having an encounter with something or someone and collide was a foreseeable possibility, because at that speed you don’t have much time to control and avoid the collision. By being in a ski facility, you know you are exposed to collisions and some other risks, and you have to accept them in order to use it.I believe in this case Neal’s claim would be denied.

Donahue’s defense to the negligence charge was assumption of risk. “Collision with another skier is a risk inherent in skiing. [The defense of] assumption of .  .  . risk precludes liability for collisions between skiers who know and appreciate the well-known and inherent risk of such collisions.” The court ruled that this defense precluded Peterson’s claim and granted Donahue’s motion for summary judgment. On Peterson’s appeal, a state intermediate appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the suit. The court explained that “assumption of the risk arises when parties have voluntarily entered a relationship in which plaintiff assumes well-known .  .  . risks. The defendant has no duty to protect the plaintiff from [these] risks.” The requirements of this defense are that “a person who voluntarily takes the risk (1) knows of the risk, (2) appreciates the risk, and (3) has a chance to avoid the risk.” In this case, Peterson had been skiing for years and was a member of a ski racing team at the time of the accident. He knew that collisions and accidents with injuries were possible. And he was above Donahue on the slope and in control of his skiing when he collided with Donahue.