This is Business Law Question. Please do not answer and waste my question if you are not aware of law. This case related to legal term "Assumption of Risk"

No need to answer Question 3.

Only Question 1 and 3.

Thanks

CASE 9.4 Zeidman v. Fisher, 980 A. 2d 637 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) FACT SUMMARY Zeidman and Fisher were partic- that no risk existed because Zeidman's agreed-upon ipants in a golf foursome at a charity tournament. On task was to check whether the fairway was clear and one hole where the view of the fairway was partially then report to his own foursome if it was safe to hit. blocked, the foursome became concerned that they Because he had not yet completed this task, Zeidman might inadvertently hit any players hidden by the blind did not manifest a willingness to accept a known risk. spots on the fairway ahead of them. The group agreed that Zeidman would take a golf cart and ride ahead WORDS OF THE COURT: Assumption-of-the- to see whether the course was clear for the group to Risk Doctrine "In the circumstances of the present hit. Zeidman made his observation and returned to his case, it is obvious that Zeidman, on returning from his foursome in the cart. Because he intended on returning forward observer mission, did not consciously assume to his foursome to report that the group ahead was out the risk of friendly fire when, to the contrary, he had of harm's way and because he never signaled to his every right to anticipate none of his playing partners group that it was safe to hit, Zeidman never entertained would attempt a tee shot until his return to the tee box. the possibility that one of his group would hit a shot. To grant summary judgment on the basis of assump- Before Zeidman returned, Fisher, becoming impatient, tion of the risk it must first be concluded, as a mat- hit his shot while Zeidman was driving his cart back ter of law, that the party consciously appreciated the to the foursome. Fisher's shot was errant, and the ball risk that attended a certain endeavor. ... Accordingly, struck Zeidman in the face, causing serious and per- whether Zeidman is able to convince a jury that his manent injuries. The trial court dismissed Zeidman's version of events is true remains to be seen, he, in any negligence lawsuit against Fisher on summary judg- event is entitled to his day in court." ment, ruling that Zeidman had assumed the risk of participating in the golf match and this assumption of Case Questions risk barred any recovery. Zeidman appealed. 1. If Zeidman had signaled to his partners that all was clear from the fairway and was then hit while return- SYNOPSIS OF DECISION AND OPINION The ing in the cart, would Fisher be entitled to a sum- Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial mary judgment based on assumption of the risk? court's decision and ruled in favor of Zeidman. The court reasoned that the assumption-of-the-risk doc- 2. What duty did Fisher owe Zeidman in the first trine requires that the evidence show that the injured place? Was it a special-relationship duty? party (1) fully understood the specific risk, (2) vol- 3. Focus on Critical Thinking:What other leisure untarily chose to encounter it, and (3) manifested a sports or activities might be covered under the willingness to accept the known risk. In this case, assumption-of-the-risk doctrine? Is it good public an objectively reasonable person may have assumed policy to shield negilgent parties with the doctrine