Wayne, a spectator, was injured at a hockey match by a flying puck. As he was leaving for the hospital, part of the arena seating collapsed because of faulty construction causing him further harm. Given these facts, which is the most correct about the application of tort law:

options:

1) He assumed the risk of all injury by going to the game.

2) If a court found that a hockey puck leaving the ice is a highly foreseeable risk, the defense may be successful in using assumption of the risk as defense as to the puck injury sustained by Wayne.

3) A court would find that he was comparatively negligent and bar any recovery.

4) Causation is too remote to find negligence.