Please, respond to the attached two classmate main posts. (Please, the responses need to be a discussion, not an evaluation. You can agree with them and add/comment about their response.)
Thank you
Instructions for the two classmate responses (around 125 words each) Please, respond to the below two classmate main posts. (Please, the responses need to be a discussion, not an evaluation. You can agree with them and add/comment about their response.) Thank you Classmate post #1: Kristin Faleev In order for the assumption of risk defense to come into play, the individual must have knowledge of said risk while voluntarily assuming that risk (Clarkson, Miller, & Cross, 2018). When someone has previously actively participated in an event, either as a participant or spectator, they know the risks that are involved. When one purchases a ticket to a baseball game, they know there is a possibility of the ball flying into the spectator’s area. Let’s say that Ms. Taylor was simply walking by Safeco Field on a day that the Mariners were practicing, she would not have assumed any risk. She was unaware they were inside practicing and yet, the ball came flying over the side of the stadium and hit her in the face. She did not 1) have knowledge of the risk (since she was unaware of their practice schedule) and 2) did not voluntarily assume that risk. However, since she does meet those two criteria, she has assumed the risk. The risk the spectator takes may be primary or secondary, dependent on the team/stadium having a legal duty to protect the plaintiff (Brown, 2012). If the team/stadium does have a duty of care and the spectator knows the risk and still takes it, this would be secondary assumption. If the team/stadium does not have a legal duty to protect the spectator, it would be primary assumption (Brown, 2012). In either situation, the spectator has assumed at least part of the risk. Do the participants in that sport suffer when the assumption of risk doctrine is applied? In the case of a professional sporting event, I do not think they really suffer. If a professional athlete accidentally hits a spectator, they probably feel awful for doing so. Sometimes they do not have full control over what happens or where balls end up. If they are the ones getting hurt, they have fully assumed the risk and that is probably in their contract somewhere. That being said, I am sure they are well taken care of in an event that happens. When stadiums and arenas make changes to ensure the participants do not get hurt, the participants most likely do not suffer from that either. Putting up a fence, a screen, or a plexiglass wall will not hinder their performance. References: Brown, G.G. (2012 Feb 21). Implied Assumption of Risk for Sports Participants. Avvo. Retrieved fromhttps://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/implied-assumption-of-risk-for-sports-participants Clarkson, K.W., Miller, R.L., & Cross, F.B. (2018). Business Law Today Text and Cases(14thEd.). Boston, MA: Cengage. Classmate post # 2: Kayla Abel Our textbook defines assumption of risk as a plaintiff who knowingly enters into a risky situation and he or she is bared from recovering their injuries (Clarkson, Miller, & Cross, 2018). In other words, the assumption of risk doctrine prohibits plaintiffs from seeking damages when the risk was known, unless the defendant intentionally injured the plaintiff. Assumption of risk applies to many circumstances, but relates more to sports due to the risk of injuries both when played and attended. In the Spotlight Case, the issue arises when whether the plaintiff assumed the risk of being hit by a baseball ball. Delinda Taylor and her family attended a baseball game and arrived an hour early to watch the players practice. Taylor and the family were sitting very close to the field. While practice was going on, Taylor looked away and got hit on the face by a baseball ball. She then sued the baseball club for the allegedly negligent warm-up throw. In the end, the court dismissed her case (Clarkson, Miller, & Cross, 2018). Unless it was an emergency injury, I don’t believe Taylor had the right to file a lawsuit regarding her injury. From my understanding, Taylor was very familiar with the game and she had a full subjective understating of potentially being struck by a ball. “Under the assumption of risk doctrine, defendant must show that plaintiff had full subjective understanding of the specific risk, both its nature and presence, and that he or she voluntarily chose to encounter the risk” (Clarkson, Miller, & Cross, 2018, p.130). The risk of potentially being injured is always assumed at every sporting events. In my opinion, the risk is obvious at any sporting events, therefore I don’t believe that the participant suffers each time a state legislature enacts a law that applies the assumption of risk doctrine to a particular sport. Individuals who participate in sports are held at high standards and assume the risks that come along with it. I also believe that outdoor sporting events should develop a safer environment to avoid such lawsuits. In football, a net is used behind the goal post to catch field goal footballs. In a way, baseball stadiums could use a similar approach to prevent lawsuits in the future. This would only apply to those who sit close by the field. References Clarkson, K. W., Miller, R. L., & Cross, F. B. (2018). Business Law: Text and Cases (14th ed.). Boston, MA. Cengage Learning.