#T3BE 240 - Full Question Text for Patrons
Added 2021-08-13 03:56:01 +0000 UTC
Comments
True, for all we know, the signs could exist because you are going off of their property, not due to risk
What do we want, time travel. When do we want it. That's Irrelevant!
2021-08-14 15:22:17 +0000 UTCI am also on the 'B' train as the question in this case is whether the contract's terms for exclusion are met by the facts of the accident in question. I thought we were going to have a question around liability for the accident (i.e., is the land owner responsible for not posting enough signage or is the biker more at fault). All that said, I want to know if the sign had happened to use the same language as the contract if this would be open and shut.... "Unduly risky, proceed at your own risk!"
Ghost of Jerry Thomas
2021-08-13 20:28:00 +0000 UTCThe evidence shows that the policy is current and covers accidents. The question that would be before the jury is whether the "risky behavior" clause in the policy includes the specific behavior engaged in by the man. And that's not a "matter of law" so explicit that the jury couldn't rule otherwise, so it's B. Unless there's some secret rule on JMOL that prevents such a motion at this time. B
Xavier Branch
2021-08-13 18:46:21 +0000 UTC
