In the lawsuit of Barnes vs. the Opponent, which ONE of the following statements is true?

 

A.

An ordinary, reasonable and prudent footballer would reasonably foresee that wearing altered cleats may result in injury (e.g., a torn ACL or an HIV infection during hospitalization for treatment of the torn ligament) to him and perhaps others.  Therefore, a duty arises not to alter those cleats.  The opponent’s conduct (wearing improperly elongated and sharpened shoe cleats) breached that legal duty to protect Barnes from foreseeable harm, including the period of time from the time he enters the hospital until the time he is discharged from the hospital.  The opponent breached this duty, and, therefore, is responsible for all foreseeable damages.

 

B.

Barnes’ injury (HIV infection from the contaminated needle while in the hospital) is not a foreseeable result of the opponent’s conduct (wearing improperly elongated and sharpened shoe cleats), and, therefore, Barne’s injury (HIV infection from the contaminated needle while in the hospital) is actually but not proximately caused by the opponent’s breach of duty.

 

C.

Barnes’ injury (HIV infection from the contaminated needle while in the hospital) is a foreseeable result of the opponent’s conduct (wearing improperly elongated and sharpened shoe cleats).   Hence, Barne’s injury (HIV infection from the contaminated needle while in the hospital) was neither actually or proximately caused by the opponent’s breach of duty.

 

D.

While participating in an athletic contest, (e.g., football game), participants consent to all actions normally associated with the contest, including activities outlawed by the rules of the game (e.g., wearing improper cleats).  The consent defense bars all actions related to or flowing from the defendant’s (the opponent’s) breach of duty, including the HIV-infection from the contaminated needle while in the hospital.

 

E.

Clearly, the opponent’s conduct (wearing improperly elongated and sharpened shoe cleats) is an abnormally-dangerous activity, and the actual and proximate cause of Barne’s ACL injury.  Therefore, the opponent is strictly liable for all damages flowing from treatment of that injury, including the HIV-infection from the contaminated needle while in the hospital.