1. List three (3) sports and then identify some inherent risks for each sport. Search the internet and find examples. Do you think that inherent risks may change as technology and rules change in sports?

Football - Head trauma through collision with opposing players. Development of helmets such as Vicis Zero1 are helping players remain safe while playing football.

Formula 1 - Head injury through crash. Halo cockpit protector has been approved for use by teams starting in 2018.

Boxing - Head trauma due to being hit by the other boxer. Change in rules that forbid any strikes to the head or neck have been proposed. In Australia they have developed a new version of boxing that doesn't allow the opposing boxers to hit the head or neck and the boxing gloves are larger and dissipate the force of the hit.

All three of these sports are very different, and the risks with each sport are very different. But each sport puts the athlete at risk that could cause severe harm that could end a career or even a life. So with football and Formula 1, they have created systems that protect one of the most at risk body parts, the head. In boxing, changes in strike zones as well equipment.

2. When does a plaintiff assume the risk of a dangerous condition on the property? Discuss the open and obvious doctrine and give an example. What is the distraction doctrine? Give an example.

I've started and I just need help polishing it up. With Bluebook citations.