CASE STUDY$($This is a hypothetical case$)$A famous ski resort held a competition which involved twoperson teams sliding down a specially created bumpy portion of a steep hill in oversized inner tubes. The competition involved going down a steep portion of the ski hill containing many bumps, which caused the inner tubes and participants to be bounced around like rag dolls.Mr$.$ X entered the competition, signed the entry and waiver form without reading it and paid the entry fee. Mr$.$ X entered the competition by signing, but not reading, an entry form that contained a waiver absolving the resort of responsibility.On the morning of the race Mr$.$ X and his friend drank large quantities of their own alcoholic beverages. They also bought alcoholic drinks from the bar at the resort. Mr$.$ X and his friend were the winners of their first heat. During the race the two were thrown from their tube and Mr$.$ X suffered a cut above his eye.Between the first and second heats Mr$.$ X drank two large swallows of brandy offered to him by the driver of a Molson beer van and was sold two more drinks at the bar of the resort. The owner of resort, saw Mr$.$ X between the first and second heats. Noting his condition, the owner asked him whether he was in any condition to compete in another heat. Mr$.$ X responded that he was. The owner did nothing more to dissuade him. At the top of the hill Mr$.$ X fell and his inner tube slid down the hill. The competition organizers provided them with a new inner tube. Mr$.$ X was visibly drunk and the manager of the resort, suggested that it would be a good idea if he did not continue in the competition. But Mr$.$ X insisted on competing and the manager took no further steps to restrain him.Mr$.$ X and his friend hit a bump on the way down the hill. They were thrown out of their inner tube. Mr$.$ X injured his neck in the fall and was rendered a quadriplegic. Earlier that afternoon another competitor had been hospitalized for neck injuries sustained during another heat of the race.Mr$.$ X sued the resort to compensate him for his serious injuries.Please analyse the case carefully and use the IRAC Approach to present the facts given in the case study. A few examples have been provided below: IDENTIFY ISSUES$-$e$.$g$.,$ the resort ignored that Mr$.$ X was drunk and allowed him to participate in the event. RULE$-$Determine the relevant law or legal principle that applies to the issue. e$.$g$.$ Law of Torts APPLICATION$-$Apply the law or legal principle to the facts of the scenario.$($Which previously decided cases can be used as an argument here$-$In Bow Valley, supra, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the test for contributory negligence that was set out by Denning L$.$J$.$ in Jones v$.$ Livox Quarries, $[1952]2$ Q$.$B$.608($Eng$.$ C$.$A$.))$ CONCLUSION$-$Draw a conclusion based on your analysis and application of the law. Give references e$.$g$.-$ Burton, Kelley. $(2017).$ Think Like a Lawyer Using a Legal Reasoning Grid and Criterion$-$Referenced Assessment Rubric on IRAC $($Issue$,$ Rule, Application, Conclusion$).$ Journal of Learning Design. $10.57.10\mathrm{.}5204/$jld$.$v$10$i$2\mathrm{.}229.$