Outdoor Outfitters: A - Case Study Example

Outdoor Outfitters: A Case Study. In the case study presented, a twelve-year old boy named Neal files a suit alleging that Outdoor Outfitters are liable of negligence after selling him a pair of skis that ultimately injure him. His main point of argument is that Outdoor Outfitters should not have allowed him to purchase the skis due to his age and the fact that he did not have any experience of using skis. From this case scenario, we are presented with an issue of negligence, in which Outdoor Outfitters have to defend and subsequently absolve themselves of any liability for Neal’s injury.

Therefore, a full understanding of all the facts and details concerning this case scenario are important in analysing the best way of coming to a logical conclusion. As such, negligence can be viewed as the non-existence of caution, attention, or rational thinking in a given situation that an otherwise astute individual would have handled more carefully in comparable circumstances (Beever 287). In most cases, this lack of care results in injury that may subsequently lead it into the hands of the law.

However, in the case of an injury, there must be a direct link between the negligence and the injury itself, meaning that the injury must be the direct result of the act of negligence. Additionally, there must be a proven connection between negligence and the existence of any legal obligation that calls for liability in the event that an individual becomes negligent (Beever 174). With the above in mind, Outdoor Outfitters have a number of ways to defend themselves. They can exonerate themselves from liability by the fact that the salesperson involved urged Neal to take a lesson first before partaking in the sport.

The main focus is on the term ‘urge’. It can be defined as to press, to impel, or to push someone to do something. If this was the most that the salesperson could do according to organizational rules, then there is no other legal duty that he failed to observe, and hence he can be absolved of negligence. Moreover, it can be argued that Neal chose to ignore the advice that he was given. This means that Neal had the rational capacity to know that what he was doing was wrong, but still chose to go with it thereby resulting in his injury.

Negligence is only applicable in situations where the victim follows the advice provided to the letter, but still gets injured (Beever 106). In our case, Neal fails to follows the advice from the salesperson, therefore highlighting the fact that the salesperson acted within the prerequisites of the law in the given situation. Consequently, this exculpates Outdoor Outfitters of any negligent behaviour. Neal’s injury can be attributed more to his own negligent behaviour than to the purported negligence of Outdoor Outfitters.

If he had followed the advice given to him, he would not have been injured, meaning that failure to exercise rational care fairly falls on him. The matter of his age also cannot stand since it is presented that he ‘chose’ to ignore the advice, highlighting the fact that he had the ability to make a choice but failed to think it through. By presenting these points effectively, Outdoor Outfitters could easily succeed in defending itself from the suit filed against them, since it is clear that they acted within the limits of the legal obligations on negligence.

Works Cited.Beever, Allan. Rediscovering the Law of Negligence. New York, NY: Hart, 2009. Print.