Reference no: EM133388476

1. Assumption of Risk

In Tilson v. Russo (2006), the plaintiff was an experienced horse rider who suffered injuries to her left shoulder when a horse named "Lady" bit her. The court of appeals affirmed the lower court's order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The appeals court found that the risk of being bitten was inherent in sporting events involving horses and that the rider was aware of the risks. To what extent should the plaintiff assume the risks described in this scenario?

2. Primary or Secondary Assumption of Risk

A teenage male enjoys swimming at the local pool. He also wants to dive into the collection at the shallow and deep ends. The shallow end is 3 feet deep. Signage and verbal instructions have been provided, and he has been reprimanded several times. One day the teenager dives into the shallow end and breaks his neck. Does this scenario fall under the primary or secondary assumption of risk? Explain your rationale.

3. Comparative Negligence

In Barillari v. Ski Shawnee (2013), Mrs. Barillari was not a ticketed skier that day but was there to watch her husband and children took skiing lessons and was generally aware of the risks of collision between skiers. Mrs. Barillari was standing close to tape that divided a ski run from the instruction area where Mr. Barillari was taking a lesson. At the time, however, she was not worried about skiers colliding with her because she believed that she was close enough to the dividing tape and there were other spectators in the area. Unfortunately for Mrs. Barillari, a skier did collide with her and caused an injury to her left leg. What elements of negligence may be used to compare which party is more at fault for the injury to Mrs. Barillari?