Comparative Theory of Negligence
Every individual is responsible for taking care of themselves to some extent. Under comparative negligence, negligence on the part of both the parties is taken into consideration and damages are distributed accordingly. In this, the fault of each party is computed in terms of percentage. The party having maximum percentage share of faults will recover nothing.
In this case, if the Jury concludes that A was partly at fault for the accident as she knew there was no trainer, still she decided to do snow tube. Thus, as per comparative negligence, if A was partly at fault, then according to the percentage of her fault her compensation will be reduced accordingly.
D will most likely to take the defense of assumption of risk for the claim of negligence. Assumption of risk underlines the two main principles,
i. There must be knowledge of the risk and,
ii. The plaintiff had taken the risk voluntarily.
While doing skiing D and P were aware of the fact that it can lead to falls, collisions, and injuries.
Therefore, it is presumed that skiing involves certain degree of risk. Hence, D can take this defense. Even court will assume this defense as there are certain activities where there is assumption of risk and skiing is one of those activities.
RM resort probably will take the defense of the assumption of risk that the plaintiff is aware about the risks associated with the snow tubers.
It is generally assumed that each and every individual participating in the ski and snow tubers have full knowledge about the risk involved and they are willingly ready to take such risk.
In this case, A has decided to go for snow tube in the absence of trainer, thereby assuming risks for the same. So, there is no fault on the part of RM Ski resort as A has assumed the risk on her own knowingly that the trainer is not there to train.
There is no answer for this question