Matthew Barrett was skiing at Mt. Brighton when he struck a snowboard rail that was located in an area intended for use exclusively by snowboarders. No signs were posted to indicate that the area was intended for snowboarders only. The snowboard rail was bright yellow and located above the level of snow on the ground, but Barrett did not see the rail until he was about to hit it. Barrett sued Mt. Brighton for negligence in not posting warnings about the rail, as well as not posting signs indicating the section of the slopes that was intended for snowboard use only. Mt. Brighton filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the defense of assumption of the risk. How did the court decide the case? Why? Barrett v. Mt. Brighton, Inc., 474 Mich. 1087, 712 N.W.2d 154 (2006).