Crocker v Sundance Northwest Resorts

Download .pdf, .docx, .epub, .txt
Did you like this example?

Our precedent case: Case name: Crocker v Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd._______ CanLii citation: 1988 CanLII 45 (SCC)________________________ Our precedent case has played an important role in the development of Canadian law; according to our textbook, it stands for the following principle (you may quote your textbook here):

  • Duty of care
  • Voluntary assumption of risk
  • Contributory negligence

Through our research we identified the following 2 cases where our precedent case was used by the Court to help determine the outcome.

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

CanLii citation: 2013 NSCA 95 (CanLII)__________________

2. Case name: Hutchison v. Daredevil Park Inc.____________

CanLii citation: 2003 CanLII 25623 (ON SC)______________ Name of Case and Citation: Burton Canada Company v. Coady, 2013 NSCA 95 (CanLII) Type and Level of Case: Superior Court Facts:

  • On February 16, 2008, Michael Coady, a 16-year-old boy, went to the Wentworth Valley Ski Resort, which was owned by Wentworth Limited (“Wentworth”), to play snowboard.
  • On that day, Burton Canada Company (“Burton”) was promoting their snowboard with several trials and provided free energy drinks that contained a lot of caffeine.
  • Burton provided waiver documents forall of the snowboarders. On that day, Coady and his friends presented their IDs and signed the waivers.
  • After several trials in the regular ski hills, Coady wanted some challenges and he went to the hills for risk-taker. He fell because of the high speed and suffered a very serious neck fracture, and finally confined to a wheelchair.

Issues:

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

Legal Principles:

  • Duty of care
  • Voluntary assumption of risk
  • Contributory negligence

How the Court Applied the Principles: The court considered that Burton and Wentworth owned a duty of care to Coady. As an occupier, the company should warn snowboarders the inherent risks of snowboarding, particularly for a snowboarder who is under the age of 18. Also, some instructions should be given to the snowboarders when they want to try the unfamiliar high-end board. The court rejected Burton’s defence of voluntary assumption of risk. As the snowboarding involves certain inherent risks, these dangers and hazards may result in serious personal injury or death. However, no signature was signed on Coday’s waiver by his parents or guardians, and the tragedy could be avoided if Burton insisted on parent’s signing. Burton asserted that Coady also had contributory negligence due to previously purchasing high-caffeine energy drinks. Nevertheless, the Judge pointed out the plaintiff was not affected by the drink and he did not take any particular energy drink before the accident.

Do you want to see the Full Version?

View full version

Having doubts about how to write your paper correctly?

Our editors will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Get started
Leave your email and we will send a sample to you.
Thank you!

We will send an essay sample to you in 24 Hours. If you need help faster you can always use our custom writing service.

Get help with my paper
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website. You can leave an email and we will send it to you.