In the Crocker and Sundance case, a ski resort organized a competition where teams slid down a steep hill in oversized inner tubes. A participant, the appellant (plaintiff), joined the competition without fully reading the entry and waiver form. During the event, the appellant, who was visibly intoxicated and had sustained a previous injury, suffered a neck injury that left him quadriplegic. The resort's owner and manager had some concerns about the appellant's condition but didn't take adequate steps to prevent him from participating.

The appellant successfully sued the resort for negligence but was found to be partially at fault, leading to a reduced damages award. However, the majority of the Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge's decision. The central question was whether the ski resort had a legal obligation to prevent visibly intoxicated individuals from participating in such a risky competition.

The court concluded that the ski resort, as the promoter of a dangerous sport, had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent visibly intoxicated individuals from participating, which they failed to do in this case. While it's generally acceptable for a resort to allow sober, physically able participants in dangerous activities, it's not acceptable to let visibly intoxicated individuals take part.

The injury to the appellant was foreseeable, and the resort's failure to prevent him from competing while drunk led to his injury. The defense of voluntary assumption of risk didn't apply because the appellant didn't willingly accept the legal risks involved in competing, especially considering his intoxicated state. Additionally, the waiver he signed was not sufficient to absolve the resort of liability because he hadn't been properly informed about its contents.

The trial judge's conclusion about contributory negligence was not challenged and remained unchanged.

question 6 What does the concept of contributory negligence mean in the context of Crocker v Sundance?

Select one:

a.The defendant's negligence contributing to the harm e.g. providing alcohol

b.The plaintiff's negligence contributing to the harm e.g. drinking

c.Joint negligence of both parties

d.Negligence in accounting practices

question7 :In negligence cases, how does the concept of contributory negligence affect the plaintiff's claim?

Select one:

a.It strengthens the plaintiff's claim (makes the plaintiffs case stronger)

b.It has no impact on the claim

c.It can reduce the plaintiff's recovery (the amount of money the plaintiff might receive)

d.It makes the defendant automatically liable

question 8:In Crocker v Sundance, the issue of voluntary assumption of risk was unsuccessfully argued. If the argument of voluntary assumption of risk had been successful, what would the result have been?

Select one:

a.Voluntary assumption of risk eliminates the need for a duty of care

b.Voluntary assumption of risk absolves the defendant of all liability

c.Voluntary assumption of risk can be used as a defense by the plaintiff

d.Voluntary assumption of risk is not relevant in Canadian law

question 9:In the case of Crocker v Sundance, it was established that where a party exercises some control or gains economic benefit in a relationship, there is a special duty on that party not to injure someone in a position where it is foreseeable (predictable) they will suffer injury. How does this principle apply to the tubing competition mentioned in the case?

Select one:

a.The party in control is not responsible for the safety of participants in the tubing competition.

b.The party in control must ensure that all participants in the tubing competition are provided with life jackets.

c.The party in control must ensure that all participants in the tubing competition have health insurance.

d.The party in control must take measures to prevent harm to participants in the tubing competition when it is foreseeable (predictable).

question 10 In the case of Crocker and Sundance, the central issue was whether the ski resort had a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent an intoxicated person from participating in a dangerous tubing competition. The court found that the resort did owe such a duty in this case. What was the key rationale behind this finding?

Select one:

a.The court believed that intoxicated individuals should always be barred from participating in any recreational activities.

b.The resort, as the promoter of a dangerous sport for profit, had a duty to prevent visibly intoxicated individuals from participating, and its failure to do so caused the appellant's injury.

c.The court's decision was based on the contractual waiver signed by the appellant.

d.The resort manager had explicitly advised the appellant not to participate.