In its defense Outdoor Outfitters, can claim that they had advised Neal to take a skiing lesson before attempting to ski. The store should not be blamed for the injuries Neal sustained because they had exercised reasonable care. This shows negligence on the part of the claimant, and he should carry the responsibility for the harm that befell him.

Outdoor Outfitters should argue that they did not have a duty in Neal’s actions after he purchased the pair of skis. After informing him to take skiing lessons, the store did not have an obligation to follow up on whether he took the lessons or not. It was Neal’s or his guardian’s responsibility to ensure that he had taken the lessons before he started skiing. The shifting of blame on the plaintiff’s part is both unreasonable and unlawful (Halbert and Elaine 38). The blame should fall squarely on the claimant and not the store.

The store in defense can argue that the claimant should have been aware of the risks that are involved in skiing. Neal did not have the expertise that is needed in skiing, but he assumed this and went ahead to ski. Skiing is a sport that has been shown to cause injuries, and the claimant was not an exception. If professional skiers can get injured, then, a person who is not experienced and has no training is more prone to accidents that can cause injuries. Therefore, it was naive for Neal to assume that he was proficient in a sport that he had never attempted. Neal voluntarily undertook the sport knowing very well the risks involved, therefore, Outdoor Outfitters should not bear the burden for his actions.

Outdoor Outfitters can argue that the only way it can take responsibility is if the merchandise purchased was of questionable quality. The store has a reputable record when it comes to the kind of products it sells to customers. If Neal had claimed that the pair skis, he purchased were substandard and were the cause of the accident that resulted in the injuries then Outdoor Outfitters can be held accountable. Neal’s suit does not relate to the state of the skis and therefore the store cannot be held liable for the claimant’s ignorance of the skills that were necessary to engage in the activity.

The store can claim that if selling the skis is what caused the accident, then the manufacturers of the skis should be more culpable. Outdoor Outfitters are only distributing the skis. The claimant had been advised to take skiing training lessons before engaging in the activity. This is as far as the store could go in their duty to make Neal aware of the risks involved. Outdoor Outfitters has a clear policy that any person without the needed expertise and training in skiing should be held personal accountable for any injuries that they cause to themselves while skiing. The claimant should appreciate that Outdoor Outfitters played its part in informing him on the importance of skiing lessons.

The issues stated above prove without reasonable doubt that Outdoor Outfitters had no responsibility for Neal’s predicament because the store had taken the initiative to inform him on the importance of taking skiing lessons. Negligence was shown in his part and that of his guardian. The suit is ill informed and malicious and can ruin the store’s reputation.