A professional dancer is hired to perform in a theatrical production. During the performance, the dancer is instructed to execute a physically intense stunt that they had previously agreed to undertake. The stunt goes wrong, resulting in a serious injury. The dancer sues the production company for battery. How does the dancer's prior agreement affect the lawsuit?
The agreement is irrelevant because injuries lead to liability.
The lawsuit should be dismissed because the dancer was an independent contractor.
The production company is not liable because the dancer accepted the inherent risks of the stunt.
The production company is liable since performing stunts results in responsibility for injuries.
By agreeing to perform the stunt, the dancer assumed the inherent risks involved, which serves as a valid defense against the battery claim. This demonstrates that the dancer accepted the potential dangers, negating the production company's liability. The other options incorrectly either disregard the agreement's relevance or impose liability regardless of the dancer's acceptance.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does it mean to assume inherent risks in this context?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the legal implications of being an independent contractor versus an employee in this situation?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the key elements that must be established for a battery claim in a legal context?