Mechanical Bull Case

Decent Essays
Business law Name Professor Course Date Question 1: Riding the mechanical bull was an open and obvious danger for which Lilya had voluntarily assumed the risk. The doctrine of voluntary assumption of risk provides that when an individual willingly engages in an activity that involves some risk of harm, and knowing that such a harm may arise, they cannot bring a claim for injury resulting from the activity. This assumption of risk applies only where a reasonable person would consider assumption of such risk. The other party cannot be liable for the harm caused because the plaintiff agreed to run the risk. In this case, Lilya was aware of the risk of riding the bull. He had watched another rider and his friend thrown off the bull. Additionally, Lilya had been thrown off the bull the first time he rode it and had voluntarily re-boarded the bull before being thrown off and sustaining the injuries. Lilya was aware of the risks involved in riding…show more content…
For an invention to be patentable it should be novel, not obvious and useful. Novelty means the invention must not have been made public prior to the application for a patent. If an invention is already available to the public it cannot be patented. It is not only important that the idea is new but it should also not be obvious. An invention is considered obvious and ineligible for a patent if an individual with ordinary skill in the relevant field would consider it obvious. The third requirement is that the patent should be useful. This means that the invention should have practical utility. In Bernard and Rand’s case, their invention is not novel because it only manipulates an existing idea. Additionally, their invention solves a mathematical problem that is obvious to an individual with ordinary skills in the field. Their invention is not patentable because it does not satisfy the requirements for patentability (Henry
Get Access