Classmate's posts (It needs some comments for each person) Afhsha Muzaffar 1. Describe what happened in the case and what the court decided? In this case study, Minor Hamill attended a summer camp program at Cheley in years for three years. In July 2004, she fell off a horse and suffered a broken arm. She sued for her damages. The court decided the agreement didn’t implicate a public duty, didn’t involve essential service, was fairly entered, and it plainly expressed the intent to release prospective negligence claims. The agreement was valid. 2. Was there a contract between the parties? If so, list all the elements of the contract you can identify from the court decision. Are any elements missing? I think the formal and Informal Contract was signed between two parties, which is written agreement signed by the parties to abide by the terms. It is called liability/risk release form. Court decided the contract was valid and it is binding and enforceable. 3. Is the contract unilateral or bilateral? The contract is unilateral contract which is simply means only one party makes a promise. 4. What issues were raised in this case as far as contract law and liability for a business engaged in activities that involve risks (such as sports)? Only the validity of Exculpatory Agreement raised in the court to see, if the contract is valid and fairly entered and clearly written. But no sports risk involving issue was raised because Hamill’s mother filed the case claiming negligence and gross negligence, arguing that a Cheley wrangler had inappropriately saddled the horse she rode. Challenge Discussion Topic----How does this decision relate to our discussion of tort law (in Chapter 8 of the textbook)? This decision was related to a tort law which means civil wrong that interferes with one’s property and person. There are three types of torts: intentional torts, negligence and strict liability. This case study belongs to a two type of tort law negligence and strict liability. Hamill’s mom claims the, Negligence is failure to exercise due care under the circumstances in consequence of which harm is proximately caused to one to whom the defendant owed a duty to exercise due care. Hamill ‘s mom want Cheley to pay her suffering and damages due to horse riding where she was demanding a Strict liability is a type of tort that imposed liability without regard to whether there was any intent to harm or any negligence occurred. Strictly liability is imposed without regard to fault. Strict or absolute liability is imposed because the activity involved is so dangerous that there must be full accountability. Nonetheless, the activity is necessary and cannot be prohibited. The compromise is to allow the activity but ensure that sit dangers and resulting damages are fully covered through he imposition of full liability for all injuries that result. Rylee Karkoska ● The case is between the cam.

1. Classmate's posts
(It needs some comments for each person)
Afhsha Muzaffar
1. Describe what happened in the case and what the court
decided?
In this case study, Minor Hamill attended a summer camp
program at Cheley in years for three
years. In July 2004, she fell off a horse and suffered a broken
arm. She sued for her damages.
The court decided the agreement didn’t implicate a public duty,
didn’t involve essential service,
was fairly entered, and it plainly expressed the intent to release
prospective negligence claims.
The agreement was valid.
2. Was there a contract between the parties? If so, list all
the elements of the contract you
can identify from the court decision. Are any elements
missing?
I think the formal and Informal Contract was signed between
two parties, which is written
agreement signed by the parties to abide by the terms. It is
called liability/risk release form.
Court decided the contract was valid and it is binding and
enforceable.
3. Is the contract unilateral or bilateral?
The contract is unilateral contract which is simply means only
one party makes a promise.
4. What issues were raised in this case as far as contract law
and liability for a business

2. engaged in activities that involve risks (such as sports)?
Only the validity of Exculpatory Agreement raised in the court
to see, if the contract is valid and
fairly entered and clearly written. But no sports risk involving
issue was raised because Hamill’s
mother filed the case claiming negligence and gross negligence,
arguing that a Cheley wrangler
had inappropriately saddled the horse she rode.
Challenge Discussion Topic----How does this decision relate to
our discussion of tort law (in
Chapter 8 of the textbook)?
This decision was related to a tort law which means civil wrong
that interferes with one’s
property and person. There are three types of torts: intentional
torts, negligence and strict
liability. This case study belongs to a two type of tort law
negligence and strict liability. Hamill’s
mom claims the, Negligence is failure to exercise due care
under the circumstances in
consequence of which harm is proximately caused to one to
whom the defendant owed a duty
to exercise due care. Hamill ‘s mom want Cheley to pay her
suffering and damages due to
horse riding where she was demanding a Strict liability is a type
of tort that imposed liability
without regard to whether there was any intent to harm or any
negligence occurred. Strictly
liability is imposed without regard to fault. Strict or absolute
liability is imposed because the
activity involved is so dangerous that there must be full
accountability. Nonetheless, the activity
is necessary and cannot be prohibited. The compromise is to
allow the activity but ensure that
sit dangers and resulting damages are fully covered through he
imposition of full liability for all

3. injuries that result.
Rylee Karkoska
● The case is between the camp (Cheley) and a camper (Chelsea
Hamill). Chelsea was riding one
of the camp's horses when she fell off and broke her arm. Her
family sued the camp despite both
Chelsea and her mother signing a liability waiver. A waiver is a
release relinquish of a known right
or objection (19-2a). The mother's claim was that Chelsea only
skimmed the document and that
she did not think negligent claims were not included. The court
decided that the waiver was still
effective despite not listing out specific scenarios.
● There was a contract between the camp and the Hamill family.
The elements of a contract are (1)
an agreement (2) between competent parties (3) based on the
genuine assent of the parties that
is (4) supported by consideration, (5) made for a lawful
objective, and (6) in the form required by
law, if any (11-1b). Both the mother and daughter along with
the camp agreed to the provision of
the waiver. The mother and the camp are both competent and
since the daughter is under the
age of 18 the mother has to sign as well. As for the remaining
elements, both parties signed the
waiver to ensure an understanding of the liabilities while the
daughter was at camp which is
required by law in order for the camp to operate properly.

4. ● I think the contract was bilateral. According to the text, if the
offeror extends a promise and asks
for a promise in return and if the offeree accepts the offer by
making the promise, the contract is
called a bilateral contract (11-2e). The camp is allowing
Chelsea attend only if the the family
signs a release waiver.
● Negligence is a key issue brought up in cases that involve
risky activities like horseback riding.
However since Mrs.Hamill signed a release form, declaring that
the camp shall not be liable for
injuries sustained by participants because of its negligence, the
waiver is binding and the lawsuit
not valid.
This decision relates to our discussions on tort law in that
negligence is a type of tort. In this
case, the harm against Chelsea was not intended by the camp
but accidental harms due to the
camp's horses is falls under negligence. If the camp didn't have
the release waiver that was
discussed then they would've been liable.
Robert Dlugaszewski
In the Hamill vs. Cheley Colorado Camps case Chelsea Hamill
attended a summer camp where
they participated in multiple activities including horseback
riding and when Chelsea was
participating in the horseback riding she fell off and broke her
arm. She then brought a
negligence and gross negligence lawsuit against the summer
camp. Before attending the

5. summer camp Chelsea's parents had voluntarily signed a
liability/risk release form after
skimming over it. In this contract,"a binding agreement based
on the genuine assent of the
parties, made for a lawful object, between competent parties, in
the form required by
law,"(Textbook, pg.206, para 2), that the parents signed they
waived any claim of liability
against Chelsea occurring to her while participating in any and
all camp programs and activities,
gave permission to participate in all camp activities, assuming
the risks involved in these
activities, and for any damages, illness, injury or death resulting
from such risks. This is
considered a unilateral contract by definition that is a, "contract
under which only one party
makes a promise," (Textbook, pg.210, para 7) which is shown
by the fact that by signing the
form the parents are making the promise not to sue if anything
is to happen to there child while
at this summer camp. So in conclusion of the case the court
decided that there was a lack of
evidence for gross negligence since they were informed of the
intent to the release of all claims
including prospective negligence claims.
This relates to tort law in the fact that after Chelsea's parents
signing a liability form to not take
action against Cheley Colorado Camps for anything that
happens to their daughter while at the
summer camp they went and tried to file a lawsuit for gross
negligence for the broken arm their
daughter suffered from after an accident while horseback riding
claiming they weren't aware of

6. what the liability form entitled since they skimmed over it. This
then resulted in the loss of the
lawsuit for the Hamill family.
Mikayla McLeod
In the Hamill V. Cheley case, "How to handle risky business," a
daughter is sent to a summer
camp. Before sending her, the mother signed a waiver that
released the camp of any liability
due to possible injury. While at camp, the daughter fell off a
horse and broker her arm. The
mother brought charges against the camp claiming gross
negligence. The court ruled in favor of
the camp. (Section 19-4d).
There is a unilateral contract between the camp and the mother.
This means that, "the offeror
may promise to do something or to pay a certain amount of
money only when the offeree does
an act... The offeree does not accept the offer by express
agreement, but rather by
performance" (Section 11-2e, para. 3). The camp provides
activities for the daughter if the
mother agrees to release liability. The elements of a contract are
"an agreement, between
competent parties, based on genuine assent of the parties,
supported by consideration, made
for a lawful objective, in the form required by law, if any"
(Section 11-1b). The only one missing
is the support of consideration since the mother only skimmed
the form.
The issues raised include using clear language. Also, both
parties need to completely
understand the agreement.

7. ENG 120D - Essay #2: Gender Roles
For your second paper, you are going to write about gender
roles. You will use the following texts:
"What's Wrong with Cinderella?" by Peggy Orenstein
"'Boy or girl?' Parents raising 'theybies' let kids decide" by Julie
Compton
Your paper must be double-spaced, at least 3 full pages, use 12
pt. Calibri, Times New Roman, or Arial font, and follow MLA
citation formatting. Refer to Sample MLA Paper on Blackboard
as well as our power points for reference.
A. Introduction paragraph
Here you will include:
i. A one sentence hook to grab the reader's attention
ii. A brief introduction to the topic and the texts you're using
iii. The answer to the THESIS question: "What are three
prevalent gender roles in society currently?"
B. Body 1
Here you will expand upon your answer to the thesis question,
using one of the readings from class. You must use the QUOTE
SANDWICH:
i. topic sentence: tell the reader what gender role you are
discussing

8. ii. quote or paraphrase: give an example from the text of this
gender role
iii. analysis: analyze the gender role in greater detail; consider
how this gender role is reinforced by social forces (media,
family, class, religion, geography, etc...) and whether this
gender role is positive and/or negative.
C. Body 2
Here you will expand upon your answer to your thesis question,
using a second reading from class. You must use the QUOTE
SANDWICH:
i. topic sentence: tell the reader what gender role you are
discussing
ii. quote or paraphrase: give an example from the text of this
gender role
iii. analysis: analyze the gender role in greater detail; consider
how this gender role is reinforced by social forces (media,
family, class, religion, geography, etc...) and whether this
gender role is positive and/or negative.
D. Body 3
This paragraph will be slightly different. Answer the thesis
question with your own ideas. Discuss a gender role for a
gender different than your own. This is similar to our
positionality essay, except you are only discussing gender.
This paragraph will contain:
i. topic sentence: tell the reader what gender role you're

9. discussing
ii. analysis: analyze the gender role in greater detail; consider
how this gender role is reinforced by social forces (media,
family, class, religion, geography, etc...) and whether this
gender role is positive and/or negative.
You do not have to use a quote or paraphrase in this paragraph.
E. Conclusion
Restate the answer to your thesis question and then explain why
gender roles are an important issue (what are the stakes).
Rough draft is worth 5 points (this is a partial rough draft, the
first three paragraphs only)
Final draft is worth 40 points
Due dates are in the syllabus.
OUTLINE
BODY 1
Which gender role are you discussing?
Which text are you using?
What is the page number of your quote / paraphrase?

10. Consider how this gender role is reinforced by social forces
(media, family, class, religion, geography, etc...) and whether
this gender role is positive and/or negative.
BODY 2
Which gender role are you discussing?
Which text are you using?

11. What is the page number of your quote / paraphrase?
Consider how this gender role is reinforced by social forces
(media, family, class, religion, geography, etc...) and whether
this gender role is positive and/or negative.
BODY 3
Which gender role are you discussing?

12. Consider how this gender role is reinforced by social forces
(media, family, class, religion, geography, etc...) and whether
this gender role is positive and/or negative.
Case Summary

13. How to Handle a Risky Business
Facts: Chelsea Hamill attended Camp Cheley for three years.
Before attending
camp each summer her parents signed a liability/risk release
form. In July 2004,
when Hamill was 15 years old, she fell off a Cheley horse and
broke her arm.
Chelsea brought a negligence and gross negligence lawsuit
against the summer
camp. Hamill’s mother testified at her deposition that she
voluntarily signed the
release after having “skimmed” it. At her deposition, the mother
testified as
follows:
Attorney
And, you know, you knew that someone such as Christopher
Reeve had been
tragically injured falling off a horse?
Ms. Hamill
Yes.
Attorney

14. Did you personally know Mr. Reeve?
Ms. Hamill
Yes.
Attorney
And so you were aware that there were significant risks
associated with
horseback riding?
Ms. Hamill
Yes.
Attorney
And you were aware that your daughter was going to be doing a
significant
amount of horseback riding?
Ms. Hamill
Yes.
Hamill’s mother’s interpretation of the release was that
prospective negligent
claims were not waived. The camp disagreed. The release stated
in part:

15. I, on behalf of myself and my child, hereby release and waive
any claim of
liability against Cheley … occurring to my child while he/she
participates in any and all camp programs and activities.
I give my permission for my child to participate in all camp
activities,
including those described above. I acknowledge and assume the
risks
involved in these activities, and for any damages, illness, injury
or death
… resulting from such risks for myself and my child.
(Emphasis Added.)
Decision: Judgment for Camp Cheley. The release did not need
to include an
exhaustive list of particularized injury scenarios to be effective.
Hamill’s mother
had more than sufficient information to allow her to assess the
extent of injury
possible in horseback riding and to make an “informed”
decision before signing the
release. The mother was informed of the intent to release “all
claims,” including

16. prospective negligence claims. While exculpatory agreements
are not a bar to civil
liability for gross negligence, the record is devoid of evidence
of gross negligence.
[Hamill v. Cheley Colorado Camps, Inc., 262 P.3d 945 (Colo.
App. 2011)]