Case Neal Peterson

422 Words2 Pages
Case problem: 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 afternoon. 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, collisions, accidents, and injures 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 injures, Peterson filed a suit in a Minnesota state court against Donahue, alleging negligence. 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? Answer: In my opinion, Donahue can apply the assumption of risk to as a defense to negligence. The court is most likely to apply that defense on Peterson’s claim by explaining that “assumption of risk” arises when both parties have voluntarily entered a relationship in which plaintiff assumes foreseeable risks. The defendant has no duty to protect the plaintiff from these risks. According to the theory, a plaintiff who voluntarily enters into a risky situation, knowing the risk involved, will not be allowed to recover. The requirements of this defense are knowledge of the risk and voluntary assumption of the risk. In this situation, Peterson is the one who started skiing at the age of two and his entire family skied. He even was in his

More about Case Neal Peterson

Open Document