Chapter 6 Tort Law Questions 2024/2025
Exam Questions and Corresponding
Answers with Surety of 100% Pass Mark
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 presented in the chapter,
answer the following questions.
What defense will Ragged Mountain probably assert?
COPYRIGHT©NINJANERD 2025/2026. YEAR PUBLISHED 2025. COMPANY REGISTRATION NUMBER: 619652435. TERMS OF USE. PRIVACY
1
STATEMENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
,The central question, in this ca - 🧠 ANSWER ✔✔RM is a Ski Resort in
state NH which is famous for skiing. Ms. E went out for snow tubing. There
are no employees to give the directions for snow tubing. Ms. E start a ride
and could not handle the tube properly and as a result suffered injuries. Ms.
E filed a suit against RM for negligence action to claim compensation for
her injuries.
1. Defense that may be probably asserted by RM is "Assumption of risk".
Under this, if the plaintiff is injured, thereby exposing himself/herself to a
possible or known risk, recovery for the loss or injury cannot be recovered
by him/her.
Here in this Case, E exposes herself to a known risk while doing snow-
tubing, even when no instructor was present there. She used snow-tube
run which was exclusively for snow tubers. Thus, RM probably can go with
this affirmative defense.
COPYRIGHT©NINJANERD 2025/2026. YEAR PUBLISHED 2025. COMPANY REGISTRATION NUMBER: 619652435. TERMS OF USE. PRIVACY
2
STATEMENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
, 2. State NH enacted a statute prohibiting the plaintiff from suing the
defendant for the injuries caused to him, arising from the inherent risk
involved in skiing. However, in case related case, such as in case of snow-
tubing, E will be assumed as she knows the possible risks involved. Thus,
E cannot take the advantage from it.
In such case, decision will favor the defendant as it can be advised that one
should not go for any such sport, if not trained well and even when there is
absence of an instructor
3. No, if the court concludes that the statue applies only to skiing and not to
snow tubing, even then also E's lawsuit will not be successful. This is
because being aware and cautious at the time of snow tubing is a general
common sense. Ms E should not had gone for snow tubing without proper
care. Thus, there are string chances that she would not win the case under
assumption of risk.
4. Under contributory Negligence theory, E's damages could be reduced in
proportion to the degree to which her actions contribu
COPYRIGHT©NINJANERD 2025/2026. YEAR PUBLISHED 2025. COMPANY REGISTRATION NUMBER: 619652435. TERMS OF USE. PRIVACY
3
STATEMENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Exam Questions and Corresponding
Answers with Surety of 100% Pass Mark
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 presented in the chapter,
answer the following questions.
What defense will Ragged Mountain probably assert?
COPYRIGHT©NINJANERD 2025/2026. YEAR PUBLISHED 2025. COMPANY REGISTRATION NUMBER: 619652435. TERMS OF USE. PRIVACY
1
STATEMENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
,The central question, in this ca - 🧠 ANSWER ✔✔RM is a Ski Resort in
state NH which is famous for skiing. Ms. E went out for snow tubing. There
are no employees to give the directions for snow tubing. Ms. E start a ride
and could not handle the tube properly and as a result suffered injuries. Ms.
E filed a suit against RM for negligence action to claim compensation for
her injuries.
1. Defense that may be probably asserted by RM is "Assumption of risk".
Under this, if the plaintiff is injured, thereby exposing himself/herself to a
possible or known risk, recovery for the loss or injury cannot be recovered
by him/her.
Here in this Case, E exposes herself to a known risk while doing snow-
tubing, even when no instructor was present there. She used snow-tube
run which was exclusively for snow tubers. Thus, RM probably can go with
this affirmative defense.
COPYRIGHT©NINJANERD 2025/2026. YEAR PUBLISHED 2025. COMPANY REGISTRATION NUMBER: 619652435. TERMS OF USE. PRIVACY
2
STATEMENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
, 2. State NH enacted a statute prohibiting the plaintiff from suing the
defendant for the injuries caused to him, arising from the inherent risk
involved in skiing. However, in case related case, such as in case of snow-
tubing, E will be assumed as she knows the possible risks involved. Thus,
E cannot take the advantage from it.
In such case, decision will favor the defendant as it can be advised that one
should not go for any such sport, if not trained well and even when there is
absence of an instructor
3. No, if the court concludes that the statue applies only to skiing and not to
snow tubing, even then also E's lawsuit will not be successful. This is
because being aware and cautious at the time of snow tubing is a general
common sense. Ms E should not had gone for snow tubing without proper
care. Thus, there are string chances that she would not win the case under
assumption of risk.
4. Under contributory Negligence theory, E's damages could be reduced in
proportion to the degree to which her actions contribu
COPYRIGHT©NINJANERD 2025/2026. YEAR PUBLISHED 2025. COMPANY REGISTRATION NUMBER: 619652435. TERMS OF USE. PRIVACY
3
STATEMENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
