Jack attends a minor league baseball game in Missouri. While he$$s there, the mascot launches tightly wrapped t$-$shirts into the stands using a cannon that shoots the shirts out at speeds up to $50$ miles per hour. Jack was sitting in the second row and carefully watching the game, paying no attention to the mascot and his t$-$shirt cannon. While he was focused on the game, the mascot launched a t$-$shirt out of the cannon that whacked Jack in the face and broke his nose. This required surgery to repair. Jack sued the minor league team for damages caused by the mascot$$s t$-$shirt cannon. If the minor league team defends itself in this lawsuit an argues Jack assumed the risk of being hit by a t$-$shirt, why might a Missouri court disagree and rule in Jack$$s favor?

Group of answer choices

Attending a minor league baseball game is not inherently risky.

It was unexpected that the t$-$shirt fired out of a cannon could break someone$$s nose

This question is misleading; a Missouri court would find that Jack assumed all risks that would come from the experience of attending a sporting event and the court would rule in the minor league team$$s favor.

Whether or not a court finds Jack assumed this risk would depend on how common attending minor league baseball games is in his community.

Jack assumed the risk of being hit by a baseball, but not the risk of being hit by promotional items.