This article indicates that the family of the young Georgian luge racer who was tragically killed during a practice run at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada has indicated that it is not interested in filing a lawsuit regarding the accident. This article addresses the "What If?" scenario of legal liability regarding the mishap. More particularly, if the family and/or estate of Nodar Kumaritashvili did decide to file a lawsuit, would the plaintiff(s) have a legitimate cause of action? Legal experts say that any potential lawsuit against the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the International Luge Federation, the designers of the Whistler luge track or anyone else would face significant challenges. All athletes involved in the Olympics must sign a legal liability waiver with the IOC, which says that they participate at their own risk. Furthermore, says Doriane Coleman, a professor at Duke Law School, the law in Canada, the United States and many other nations provides that people participating in potentially dangerous sports "assume" the risks inherent in them, and therefore are often barred from suing when they are injured. As the article indicates, however, the assumption of the risk argument could be potentially rebutted if Kumaritashvili's family and/or the representatives from his estate can demonstrate that the track designers or others were grossly negligent or extremely reckless. Geoffrey Rapp, a law professor at the University of Toledo and sports law expert, says that Kumaritashvili's case might be helped by establishing that the authorities in Vancouver either knew or should have known about potential problems with the track, but failed to make it safer. "Assumption of risk sets up a high bar, but not an insurmountable one," says Rapp. "We assume normal risks, but not abnormal risks," adds Coleman. "If, for instance, it's completely abnormal for the track's wall to be below a certain height at the point of impact or if track designers always design walls so the riders cannot flip over them, then you might be able to argue that flipping over a wall and crashing into a beam is simply not a risk inherent in the activity of luging." That authorities made changes to the track after the accident might seem to indicate an acknowledgment of fault. But Ryan Rodenberg, a lawyer who teaches sports law at Indiana University, says that for public policy reasons, such evidence would likely not be admissible in court as proof of such acknowledgment. "You don't want people shying away from corrections or improvements because they fear they'll be used against them in court," said Rodenberg. Discussion Questions 1. In your reasoned opinion, does the information presented in the article (or from any other source you choose to reference) demonstrate negligence on the part of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the International Luge Federation, and/or the designers of the Whistler luge track? Why or why not? 2. In your reasoned opinion, did Nodar Kumaritashvili "assume the risk" by participating in the luge event? 3. As the article indicates, Olympic authorities made changes to the track after the accident occurred (essentially, they modified the ice track and constructed a wall on the turn where the accident occurred). In the event of litigation, should a court admit into evidence post-accident repairs/modifications? Why or why not?