Madeline enters into a contract with Canyon Canoes to go on a weeklong canoe trip down a river. The contract states that, although the firm provides experienced guides and high-quality equipment, they are not insurers of the adventurers’ safety. The firm cannot be responsible for harm resulting from ordinary dangers of outdoor activities. Madeline is injured when the Coleman stove she was provided with explodes. The explosion was caused by an inadequate repair that had been made by Canyon Canoes. The company raises the defense of assumption of the risk when she sues it for negligence. Is this a valid defense? Why or why not?