David, a ten-year-old, purchased a plastic snow sled from Qmart. He went sledding, lost control, hit a tree, and was injured. David's parents filed a negligence lawsuit in a state court against Qmart, alleging that the store should not have sold this type of sled because it was difficult to steer and had no brakes, making it unreasonably dangerous. Qmart contended that sledding is an inherently dangerous activity and that David assumed the risks involved when he went sledding. The court probably found that Qmart was: a. not liable because David assumed the risks of sledding. b. liable because David did not know the risks of sledding. c. not liable because David's injuries were unforeseeable. d. liable because sledding is unreasonable.

Question

Lillianna Holder

Social Studies

18 August, 14:59

David, a ten-year-old, purchased a plastic snow sled from Qmart. He went sledding, lost control, hit a tree, and was injured. David's parents filed a negligence lawsuit in a state court against Qmart, alleging that the store should not have sold this type of sled because it was difficult to steer and had no brakes, making it unreasonably dangerous. Qmart contended that sledding is an inherently dangerous activity and that David assumed the risks involved when he went sledding. The court probably found that Qmart was: a. not liable because David assumed the risks of sledding. b. liable because David did not know the risks of sledding. c. not liable because David's injuries were unforeseeable. d. liable because sledding is unreasonable.

+3

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Ann Cabrera · Answer 1

A - not liable because David assumed the risks of sledding.

When one purchases equipment for a sport or activity - one is assuming the risks of the sport (or activity)