Parents argue that skis should not have been sold to Neal, their twelve-year old son due to the fact he ‘was clearly too young and inexperienced,’ but with a statement left so broad, who is to determine the criteria to be considered ‘too young and inexperienced’? Without a legal age limit statute to direct retail stores, such as Outdoor Outfitter (OO), who and who is not legally allowed to purchase skis, retailers, such as OO, are left to assume that the market for skis can be considered similar to that of any other outdoor sports. Take football as an example, would a reasonable person consider a store, such as Dick’s Sporting Goods, to be liable for a football player’s concussion from playing football? This would be a highly unlikely accusation.
…show more content…
If surrounding ski stores or OO, for the matter, had never sold to a minor before the incident with Neil, the store would be held liable as well. This would breach the salespersons duty of care due to the fact that the reasonable person standard suggests that selling skis to minors is not the standard procedure exhibited in the area where OO is located. To prove liability in a trial the plaintiff, Neil and his family, would have to prove that the defendant, OO, caused the injury. In order to prove causation, Neil’s family would have to prove causation in fact, that the injury occurred due to the negligent acts of OO, in this case, the selling of skis. Negligence of Outdoor Outfitters is also determined through proximate cause. The acts of the salesperson can directly be linked to Neil’s injuries due to the fact that this was a foreseeable incident, since Neil did state that he ‘really wants to do it.’ If a state statute deemed that there was an age limit to be able to buy skis the salesperson would also be liable under Negligence Per Se. The previously, mentioned hypothetical situations can all be used to prove liability but from the above facts presented, Outdoor Outfitters is not liable due to insufficient facts represented in the presented
If surrounding ski stores or OO, for the matter, had never sold to a minor before the incident with Neil, the store would be held liable as well. This would breach the salespersons duty of care due to the fact that the reasonable person standard suggests that selling skis to minors is not the standard procedure exhibited in the area where OO is located. To prove liability in a trial the plaintiff, Neil and his family, would have to prove that the defendant, OO, caused the injury. In order to prove causation, Neil’s family would have to prove causation in fact, that the injury occurred due to the negligent acts of OO, in this case, the selling of skis. Negligence of Outdoor Outfitters is also determined through proximate cause. The acts of the salesperson can directly be linked to Neil’s injuries due to the fact that this was a foreseeable incident, since Neil did state that he ‘really wants to do it.’ If a state statute deemed that there was an age limit to be able to buy skis the salesperson would also be liable under Negligence Per Se. The previously, mentioned hypothetical situations can all be used to prove liability but from the above facts presented, Outdoor Outfitters is not liable due to insufficient facts represented in the presented