solved All students: You are expected to make significant comments to

All students: You are expected to make significant comments to one case brief every week (except the week that you submit your revised case brief here). Your response should be at least 250 words. A significant comment may include any comparison to your own case brief or assigned video, any pertinent insight from your current employment about how you fulfill the holding, disagreement with the holding with rationale, etc. You will be expected to compare / contrast with current events. You should use relevant legal terms in your analysis.
Post:
Fairchild v. Amundson
Wash App. Lexis 149 (2001)
Facts: In April 1995, Thomas Fairchild the plaintiff participated in a whitewater rafting trip on the Toutle River in the state of Washington. The defendant, Rodney Amundson with Wild Water River Tours (WWRT) guided the rafting trips. Fairchild had previously participated in whitewater rafting trips, and knew that one of the possible dangers of rafting included falling out into the water. He also read brochures of WWRT that describe other dangers of river rafting. The day of the rafting trip, Fairchild and his church group gathered near the river under WWRT supervision, Fairchild was given a wetsuit, helmet, and life vest by WWRT. All of the rafters were required to sign an “Acknowledgement of Risk” form. This form is a waiver which is a contract that the participant or the user of the service agrees to relieve the provider of the duty of ordinary care. WWRT guides then instructed the group on paddling and safety measures. Safety measures included instructions on how to maneuver the raft near logs, rocks, and reversals. They also included instructions on swimming in the event rafters are in the water, pulling a swimmer back into the raft, and escaping from underneath the raft. River rapids are classified on a scale from class I (easiest) to class V (most difficult). The Toutle River has two Class IV rapids, one of which is known as Hollywood Gorge (Gorge). The Gorge also contains a “reversal,” a point in the river subject to strong downward pressure that may cause a raft to overturn. As they approached the Gorge, all the rafts stopped, Amundson and other WWRT guides got out of the rafts and scouted the Gorge. After everyone returned to their rafts and reentered the river, Amundson’s raft successfully navigated through the Gorge just beyond the reversal. Amundson then waited on other rafts. Fairchild’s raft was sucked into the reversal, and all the participants were thrown into the water. Observed from his raft, Amundson immediately paddled into the river’s current to retrieve Fairchild. Amundson and other provided CPR to Fairchild, who had been floating face down in the river, and resuscitated him. Fairchild went to the hospital, where he was treated and released the next day. Fairchild sued, and the trial court granted WWRT’s motion for summary judgment.
Issue: Whether White Water River Tours (WWRT) owed a duty to its customer, Thomas Fairchild, for injuries he suffered during a rafting trip on the Toutle River.
Was Fairchild aware of the inherent risks of whitewater rafting?
What is the value of the assumption of risk agreement?
Holding: Affirm the order granting defendant’s motion of summary agreement
Rationale: Fairchild chose to encounter the risk of being thrown into the water despite having numerous alternatives. He could have chosen to take an easier rafting trip, he could have selected to forgo whitewater rafting as a whole, he also could have chosen to back out once he reached the starting point or when his raft stopped and the guides scouted the Gorge. After all, Fairchild fails to establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether he voluntarily encountered the risk.
Important Information: This case is important because of the assumption of risk which is inherent risk. Primary assumption of risk is when the plaintiff may not not recover from an injury received when the plaintiff voluntarily exposes himself/herself to a known and appreciated danger. Fairchild lost this case because he was aware of this risk he was taking and was held liable for his participation. WWRT provided proper training and equipment. Every participant was required to read and sign the “Acknowledgment of Risk” form which provided details about the risks encountered with rapid rides. Secondary assumption of risk involves a voluntary choice or conduct of the participant to encounter a known or obvious risk created by the negligent conduct of the service provider, or to fail to follow rules or heed warnings set down by the provider. Also the whitewater rafting ride they participated in was nicknamed “fast and furious” which should indicate what type/level ride it is. Fairchild also mentioned he wanted something more advanced since he had been whitewater rafting before. Fairchild should have been more aware of the classification he was selecting and taken it more seriously.