Crocker v Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd 1988 CanLII 45 (SCC) case analysis

August 13, 2017 General Studies

Our case in point instance:

Case name: Crocker v SundanceNorthwest Resorts Ltd._______

CanLii commendation:1988 CanLII 45 ( SCC ) ________________________

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Our case in point instance has played an of import function in the development of Canadian jurisprudence ; harmonizing to our text edition, it stands for the undermentioned rule ( you may cite your text edition here ) :

  • Duty of attention
  • Voluntary premise of hazard
  • Contributory carelessness

Through our research we identified the following 2 instances where our case in point instance was used by the Court to assist find the result.

1. Case name:Burton Canada Company v. Coady,____

CanLii commendation:2013 NSCA 95 ( CanLII ) __________________

2. Case name: Hutchison v. Daredevil ParkInc.____________

CanLii commendation:2003 CanLII 25623( ON SC) ______________

Name of Case and Citation:Burton Canada Company v. Coady, 2013 NSCA 95 ( CanLII )

Type and Level of Casvitamin E:Superior Court

Facts:

  • On February 16, 2008, Michael Coady, a 16-year-old male child, went to the Wentworth Valley Ski Resort, which was owned by Wentworth Limited ( “ Wentworth ” ) , to play snowboard.
  • On that twenty-four hours, Burton Canada Company ( “Burton” ) was advancing their snowboard with several tests and provided free energy drinks that contained a batch of caffeine.
  • Burton provided release paperss for all of the snowboarders. On that twenty-four hours, Coady and his friends presented their IDs and signed the releases.
  • After several tests in the regular ski hills, Coady wanted some challenges and he went to the hills for risk-taker. He fell because of the high velocity and suffered a really serious cervix break, and eventually confined to a wheelchair.

Issues:

  • Was Michael Coady contributorily negligent? Were Burton and Wentworth negligent?
  • Did Michael Coady voluntarily assume the hazard?

Legal Principles:

  • Duty of attention
  • Voluntary premise of hazard
  • Contributory carelessness

How the Court Applied thePrinciples:

The tribunal considered that Burton and Wentworth owned a responsibility of attention to Coady. As an resident, the company should warn snowboarders the built-in hazards of snowboarding, peculiarly for a snowboarder who is under the age of 18. Besides, some instructions should be given to the snowboarders when they want to seek the unfamiliar high-end board.

The tribunal rejected Burton’s defense mechanism of voluntary premise of hazard. As the snowboarding involves certain built-in hazards, these dangers and jeopardies may ensue in serious personal hurt or decease. However, no signature was signed on Coday’s release by his parents or defenders, and the calamity could be avoided if Burton insisted on parent’s sign language.

Burton asserted that Coady besides had conducive carelessness due to antecedently buying high-caffeine energy drinks. However, the Judge pointed out the complainant was non affected by the drink and he did non take any peculiar energy drink before the accident.

Judgment:

Burton and Wentworth was responsible for half of the compensation ( $ 24,000 in entire ) .

Myideas:

The tribunal judged that Burton and Wentworth owned responsibility of attentions to plaintiff, Coady. In my sentiment, the Court’s analysis of this instance is sound, since Burton and Wentworth should take duty of taking attention of persons as amusement suppliers, particularly for a male child who is under 18 old ages of age.

I personally do non hold with the consequence. The result was morally and ethically inappropriate, even though Coady received the compensation, which can be treated as compensatory to the complainant. However, this consequence may increase moral hazard. For some persons who want to acquire a great sum of money, they may give their physical wellness to gain the compensation.

In consideration of hazard direction, for any out-of-door activities, patrons should show release and take a firm stand it signed by teenagers’ parents or defenders, every bit good as verify players’ status that non merely include ages or IDs, but besides contain alcohol drink or high-caffeine drink. Furthermore, host ought to warn participants about the nature and possible danger of activities, which means companies besides need to post marks to dismay participants. Furthermore, patrons should fix protective equipments such as helmet and patella for customers’ safety.

Name of Case and Citation:Hutchison v. Daredevil Park Inc. , 2003 CanLII 25623 ( ON SC )

Type and Level of Case:Superior Court

Facts:

  • The complainant, Mr. Hutchison went to Daredevil Park with his household and broke his mortise joint because of faux pas when he was come ining the waterslide.
  • Mr. Hutchison, who had no experience on sinuate waterslide before, got hurt at the 3rd clip of utilizing the slide.
  • There was an attender who was responsible for the usage of both snaky slides and consecutive slides, but he didn’t provide Mr. Hutchison the relevant instructions.

Issues:

  • Did Daredevil Park owe a responsibility of attention to Mr. Hutchison? If a responsibility existed, what criterion of attention was required and was the standard met?
  • Did Mr. Hutchison voluntarily assume the hazard? Did he hold contributory carelessness?

Legal Principles:

  • Duty of attention
  • Voluntary premise of hazard
  • Contributory carelessness

How the Court Applied the Principle:

Harmonizing to the Occupiers’ Liability Act, Daredevil Park has the duty to guarantee the safety of clients. However, in this instance, when the complainant entered the waterslide, there was no direction from the attender, and no signage or other warning at the entryway. Furthermore, the deficiency of bannisters contributed to this accident.

The tribunal judged that there was no grounds to turn out that Mr. Hutchison knew it was hazardous to utilize the slide, and as he already paid for the ticket, he had the legal right to bask the installations safely in the park. Therefore, the voluntary premise of hazard is non applied in this instance.

Mr. Hutchison had no cognition about how to utilize waterslides and he didn’t inquire the attender for direction, so he had a conducive duty for his harm.

Judgment:

Daredevil Park had primary liability for the accident, so it was responsible for 80 per centum of Mr. Hutchison’s hurt. And Mr. Hutchison undertook 20 per centum of all his harm due to conducive carelessness.

My ideas:

From my point of position, the result is lawfully appropriate because this sort of consequence for a public park that person may acquire injury is foreseeable ( Just like in Crocker’s instance, Sundance organised competition and provided drinks, so Crocker’s harm could be predictable ) . And as an resident, it is the park’s responsibility to guarantee customers’ safety by all sensible safeguards. However, different from Crocker’s instance, Mr. Hutchison did non subscribe a release with the park, so he had no voluntary premise of hazard.

I argue that the judgement is morally acceptable. As an grownup with mature thought, Mr. Hutchison was supposed to inquire for direction as he had ne’er entered waterslides before to avoid hazard, so he ought to take partial duty for his hurt.

In footings of the hazard direction for an organisation, I believe it would be hard for them to run, particularly in the public topographic point since there are so many resources and labours are involved. Therefore, for Daredevil Park, it is of import to develop the employees every bit good as brand adequate and appropriate agreement of employees. In add-on, more marks and warnings should be built in those countries with possible hazards.

Comparison

Both of the two instances we found used the rules in our case in point instance, nevertheless, there are some differences about how they applied the rules as followed:

Duty of attention:In both of the two instances, Daredevil Park and Burton Company are residents so they have the duty to guarantee the safety of their clients. In the Park’s instance, the nonsubjective ground of the accident is the lack of direction and bannisters for protecting the clients, and the deficiency of signage or other warning at the entryway. Similarly, in Burton’s instance, the company had the duty to warn a snowboarder, peculiarly who is under the age of 18, about the built-in hazards of snowboarding and how to utilize an unfamiliar board.

Voluntary premise of hazard:In the Park’s instance, no release was signed by Mr. Hutchison, which means there was no grounds to turn out that Mr. Hutchison knew it was hazardous to utilize the slide, so the voluntary premise of hazard is non applied. By contrast, in the other instance, the alleged release understanding was signed by the complainant, which means the complainant voluntarily assumed the hazard. Nevertheless, in this instance, the equipment users required a contract signed by parents or defenders when the user is under age of 18, and no signature was signed by Coady’s parents or defenders. Hence, the tribunal rejected Burton’s defense mechanism of voluntary premise of hazard because if Burton insisted on parent’s sign language, the calamity may non go on.

Conducive carelessness:In the Park’s instance, as an grownup, Mr. Hutchison had no cognition about how to utilize waterslides but he didn’t inquire the attender for direction, so he had a conducive duty and undertook 20 per centum of all his harm. However in Burton’s instance, Coady had no contributory carelessness, because based on the judgement of tribunal, it was excessively unsafe to allow clients to seek the barrel jib characteristic ; besides, it was non appropriate for the being of such free high-energy drinks under the fortunes, so all his harm was undertaken by the company.

1

x

Hi!
I'm Amanda

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out