Dave Laskin worked for an advertising company, Ad Co., and was often required to take clients out to lunch to give them his pitch. He travelled from the office to these appointments in a company car with “Ad Co.” painted on the side of the vehicle. On July 15, 2020, he took a client out for lunch to a local pub, The Tavern. Throughout the course of the very long “lunch”, Dave had about 10 drinks. Despite feeling a bit tipsy when he left, Dave decided to drive back to the office. But as he was pulling out of the parking lot, a bee flew into his car. While attempting to swat at the bee, he accidentally slammed on the accelerator. He ended up running into Gary Dickson, who was riding his bike across the entrance of the parking lot at the time. Gary was thrown from his bike. At the hospital, Gary was diagnosed with a broken arm and a skull fracture. The doctor noted that Gary’s head injury would not have been as severe had he been wearing a helmet. In all, he ended up missing three months of work while recovering from his injuries, particularly his severe headaches. But even after recovering physically, Gary was still psychologically affected by the accident. He went into major depression and requires ongoing counselling. Gary is talking to you on July 10, 2022, and notes that he is thinking about bringing an action against the persons he thinks might be liable for his injuries. In his jurisdiction, there is a two-year limitation period for all claims. Follow the approach to a case analysis set out above and discuss who Gary might bring an action against and his chance of success. Your detailed analysis and discussion should include:

(a) The nature/basis for the court action that Gary may take against Dave and his chance of success; 

(b) The nature/basis for the court action that Gary may take against The Tavern and his chance of success; 

(c) The basis, if any, upon which Ad Co. might be liable for Dave’s conduct; 

(d) Any defences that may be raised by the defendants; 

(e) The avenues of dispute resolution available to the parties, including the factors the parties should consider in assessing the avenues; 

(f) The impact of the two-year limitation period on Gary’s action against the defendants; and 

(g) The remedies available to Gary should he succeed in his court action.