George the owner of a softball park, has a duty to provide a backstop to protect spectators who want the protection against the risk of being hit by a ball. Nikita, a visitor from Eastern Europe, sits in the stands behind the plate where the backstop should be. Nikita has never seen softball, knows nothing about it and does not understand the danger. During the game, Nikita is struck and injured by a ball.
Nikita sues George for her injuries. George uses the defense of assumption of the risk. Will George win?
Question 11 options:
a)
NO, because Nikita knew nothing about softball, Nikita did not understand the risk,
b)
NO, George should have used the defense of comparative negligence,
c)
YES, because Nikita willingly sat behind the plate.