LAW- Assignment-1

.docx

School

Humber College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

4002

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

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

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