Elaine Sweeney went to Ragged Mountain Ski Resort in New Hampshire with a friend. Elaine went snow tubing down a run designed exclusively for snow tubers. There were no Ragged Mountain employees present in the snow-tube area to instruct Elaine on the proper use of a snow tube. On her fourth run down the trail, Elaine crossed over the center line between snow-tube lanes, collided with another snow tuber, and was injured. Elaine filed a negligence action against Ragged Mountain seeking compensation for the injuries that she sustained. Two years earlier, the New Hampshire state legislature had enacted a statute that prohibited a person who participates in the sport of skiing from suing a ski-area operator for injuries caused by the risks inherent in skiing. Using the information to answer the following questions. a. What defense will Ragged Mountain probably assert?
b. The central question in this case is whether the state statute establishing that skiers assume the risks inherent in the sport bars Elaine's suit. What would your decision be on this issue? Why?
c. Suppose that the court concludes that the statute applies only to skiing and not to snow tubing. Will Elaine's lawsuit be successful? Explain.
d. Now suppose that the jury concludes that Elaine was partly at fault for the accident. Under what theory might her damages be reduced in proportion to the degree to which her actions contributed to the accident and her resulting injuries?

The Ragged Mountains were established in the year 1997 and were made to the knowledge of the public in the year 1999.

The mountains included a collection of Charlottesville surrounded by the river basin everywhere with almost the oak and yellowwoods.

1. The 'assumption of risk' defense is used by the Ragged Mountains. Elaine Sweeney put herself in danger while snow tubing in the absence of an instructor in this scenario.

The snow tube run is exclusively for tubers. This defense can be used by the ragged mountain.

2. The state of New Hampshire has made it illegal to sue for injuries sustained while skiing. In a situation like this, it's reasonable to assume that Ms. Elaine is aware of all potential dangers.

The defendant will be favored because it has been suggested that people should not participate in sports of this nature without proper training and supervision.

3. No, Elaine's lawsuit will fail if the court decides that the statute only applies to skiing and not to snow tubing. Snow tubing should be approached with caution.

She went snow tubing without taking the necessary precautions. It is very likely that she will lose the case.

4. Contributory negligence theory is the fourth theory. Her damages will be reduced in direct proportion to the actions that caused her accident. As a result, she bears some responsibility.

To know more about the ragged mountains, refer to the link below:

link

Explanation:

1. Ragged mountains assertion of defense is 'assumption of risk'. In this scenario, Elaine Sweeney exposed herself to risk while snow tubing at the absence of an instructor. snow tube run is solely for snow tubers. ragged mountain can use this defense

2. new hampshire has prohibited people from suing for injuries received due to skiing risks. in a case of this sort, ms Elaine would be assumed to know all possible risks involved. the defendant will be favored since it has been advised that people should not go into sports of these sorts witout good training and an instructor.

3. no Elaine's lawsuit will not be successful if the conclusion of the court is that the statue applies to skiing and not to snow tubing. one should be cautious during snow tubing. she went snow tubing without proper care. it is likely that she may not win the case.

4. the theory is contributory negligence theory. her damages is going to be reduced in proportion with the actions that has brought about her accident. for this reason she is partly responsible.

answer; /// i believe the answer is (insider trading)