Outdoor Outfitters has many excuses for their defense. One of these is the assumption of risk. Outdoor Outfitters could argue that Neal assumed the risk of an activity that is considered risky to a reasonable person. This may or may not be successful as Neal’s age may be a factor in determining whether or not Neal had “actual knowledge of the risk” (Advanced Business law and the Legal Environment, 2014). Outdoor Outfitters would also attempt to void one of the elements of the “tort of negligence”, which are a “standard of care” and a breach of such, an affiliation to the injury, and an actual injury (Advanced Business law and the Legal Environment, 2014). Since Neal has an actual injury, they will focus on the first three elements. Outdoor
