LAW- Assignment-1
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Humber College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
4002
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by MajorGalaxyAlbatross17
BUSINESS AND FAMILY LAW
LAW 4002 CRN 51303
ASSIGNMENT 1:
TORTS AND CONTRACTS
Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd.,
1988 CanLII 45 (SCC),
[1988] 1 SCR 1186
Submitted By: Param Gill (101364330)
Ci Qu (101390681)
Dhwnil Mehta (101391491)
Himani Bhatt (.
)
1
Q1. Read the facts
of the case. What facts jump out at you right away as being problematic
and why?
The facts that may be problematic in this case are:
The fact that Crocker and his friend were visibly intoxicated before and during the
competition.
The fact that Crocker did not read the entry and waiver form and did not appreciate
that it was a waiver.
The fact that the owner of Sundance, Beals saw Crocker's condition between the first
and second heats and asked him whether he was in any condition to compete in
another heat but did nothing more to dissuade him.
The fact that Durno, the manager of Sundance, suggested that it would be a good idea
if Crocker did not continue in the competition because he was visibly drunk, but
Crocker insisted on competing and Durno took no further steps to restrain him.
These facts may be problematic because they raise questions about the duty of care
owed by Sundance to its participants, and whether it was breached. The fact that
Crocker and his friend were visibly intoxicated may raise questions about whether
Sundance had a duty to prevent them from participating in the competition, and
whether they should have been disqualified from the competition. The fact that
Crocker did not read the entry and waiver form may raise questions about the
enforceability of the waiver. The fact that Beals and Durno saw Crocker's condition
and did nothing more to prevent him from competing may raise questions about
whether they breached their duty of care to ensure the safety of the participants.
Q2. There is little surprise that the SCC found there is a duty of care. Reading paragraphs 27– 29,
why did the court hold that the standard of care had not been met?
According to the Supreme court of Canada, Sundance resort could have restricted
Crocker from competing by disqualifying him at the time they realize he was drunk,
or they could have easily stopped him from competing by stating him that the risk of
injury he could face if he will compete while being drunk. None of these preventive
measures the Sundance resort mentioned to Crocker before which could imposed a
serious burden. Even though they did none of them.
These are the preventive measures suggested by the judge Wilson of the supreme
court of Canada which Sundance resort failed to do so, there was a duty of care not
performed by Sundance resort.
Sundance resort can't give excuses that they warned Crocker to not participate in
second heat of tubing. Laissez faire rule (leave alone) doesn't apply here.
Q3. At paragraph 30, Justice Wilson outlines Sundance’s position that tubing is an inherently
dangerous activity. Of course, it is.
As such, why can it not be said that Crocker voluntarily
assumed the risk?
Participation of Crocker in the tubing competition can be viewed as an assumption of
the physical risks involved. Even this, however, is doubtful because of the fact that
2
his mind was clouded by alcohol at the time. It is nearly impossible to conclude,
however, that he assumed the legal risk involved because, he is sliding down a hill in
an oversized inner tube cannot be viewed as constituting per se a waiver of Crocker's
legal rights against Sundance.
The volente defence is a complete bar to recovery. It is only applicable in situations
where the plaintiff has assumed both the physical and the legal risk involved in the
activity.
The volente defence is inapplicable in the present case.
Q4. What elements of contract are missing, and how, from the waiver that invalidates it as a
binding contract?
An agreement between two parties or more which creates mutual obligations that are
enforceable by law is a known as a contract. In order to understand the case, it is
important to know about the elements of a binding contract and they are:
Offer
Acceptance
Consideration
Mutual assent
Capacity
In this case the element of contract that is missing is “Capacity”. The fact that the
plaintiff was intoxicated because of alcohol consumption and the defendant was aware
of this situation makes the contract voidable. As any person intoxicated is not in the
capacity to understand the elements of a contract and perceive his duties and
responsibilities towards another party. The fact that the defendant permitted the plaintiff
to take part in the tubing competition makes it difficult to come to the conclusion that
the defendant relieved itself from any legal obligation. Moreover, when we talk about
the offer Crocker signed a combination entry and waiver form. Even though the waiver
provision was included in the entry form it was not evident enough to draw the
plaintiff’s attention. Therefore, making the plaintiff unaware of its existence. As a result,
the volenti non fit injuria is not applicable in this case
Q5. And this is where I actually DO want your personal (group) opinion: Do you agree with the
result in this case?
Why or why not? Make sure to make a LEGAL argument to back your
opinion.
Yes, we agree with the result in this case because of the following reasons:
The fact that plaintiff was intoxicated and was still permitted to take part in the tubing
competition by the defendant, makes it evident that the defendant was being negligent.
The fact that the defendant included the waiver proposition the entry form, makes it
difficult for the plaintiff to be aware about the existence of the waiver proposition.
3
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
The fact that the defendant allowed the plaintiff to participate in the second phase of the
tubing competition. Even though they were aware about the fact that the plaintiff
suffered neck injury during the first phase of the tubing competition making him prone
to a serious injury, shows that they were highly negligent.
4