seamons vs. snow case brief Facts: Issues: Holding: Rationale: Example: Facts: Defendant struck the plaintiff with a hockey puck during a warmup when his missed the open goal in at practice for an amateur hockey league team. The Plaintiff suffered injuries by his eye leading him to damages losing eighty percent of his vision and the defendants negligence was brought to his attention. Plaintiff constituted that the defendant did not warn him of the shot before it was taken did not have a goalie present and the shot was intentional. Defendant inscribes his innocence of repetitious warm-up and was not intentional. Issues: At the time of the shot during warmup is there enough substantial evidence to prove that is was intentional, negligent or accident? Holding: Court finds that the plaintiff had previous information of the game and that the activities he participated in was known of the risks of what to expect during warmups. Leaving the facts stating that there was no statue in place in the state of Illinois stating that the negligence of was intentional. Since of no such written type of compliance of taking shots in open nets that these types of risks always exist. During athlete voluntary competition the plaintiff knew of these risks leaving him responsible. The trial court held in favor of the defendant for inhibiting in a routine practice whereas he was not responsible for negligent actions nor intentional and that the plaintiff willfully contributed to self-risk. Rationale: Courts must weigh the evidence from both parties to come to a conclusion on what level of negligence is meriting intentional actions justifying risk and the conduct of the defendant towards the plaintiff. Most of the time probable cause is where the nature of the incident requires the court to decide whether or not that breach on the applications compelling duty to protect the plaintiff (Cotten, 2013). In this case, the assumption of risk was on the plaintiff knowingly participating in the sport that put in the position of harm and/or danger inhibiting causation. This is the reasoning behind the courts decision because the injury caused by the defendant was