CASE STUDY

Jacobson v. Kinsmen Club of Nanaimo (1976)

At a "Beer Garden" held in a curling rink by the Kinsmen Club attended by approximately 2000 people, a patron decided to "entertain" the crowd. He climbed to an I-beam supporting the roof and dropped his pants while hanging from the beam. A little while later he and a friend repeated the performance. Nothing untoward happened and the crowd seemed to enjoy the "show".

Another guest then attempted the same act, unfortunately not as successfully. He fell 30 feet and landed on another guest who was injured. The court made some interesting comments. It stated that, had the first guest fallen, the court would not have held the Kinsmen Club liable. "Who could foresee that someone would attempt this activity, and how could they have effectively intervened." However, after the first event it was foreseeable, and what did the Club do to prevent a reoccurrence? Nothing.

After the second occurrence, the event was not only foreseeable, it was an ongoing activity. By this time, the Kinsmen should have intervened, warned the patrons that this activity would not be tolerated, and even posted members by the I-beam pillars to prevent anyone climbing. The Kinsmen did none of these things and by failing to take more effective measures to prevent a recurrence, the Club breached its duty and was found to be liable.

1. The facts- List 5 Facts about the Case (5 marks)
2. The issue(s)- List 5 Issues regarding the case (5 marks) Make sure it is in question format.
3. The court's decision (1 mark)
4. The court's reasoning supporting the decision- List minimum of 3 reasons, site Law where applicable. (3 marks)
5. Conclusion: Do you agree with the outcome? Why or why not? Justify your answer. (6 marks):
6. Agree/not (1 mark)
7. Why or why not (2 marks)
8. Your own personal justification/rationale expanding on why or why not (3 marks)