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 1 . Who was the plaintiff in the case of Crocker v Sundance?

Select one:

a.Mr. Sundance

b.The government

c.Mrs. Crocker, the manager of the ski resort

d.A corporate entity

e.Sundance Ski Resort

f.Mr. Crocker, a guest at the ski resort

question2: What was the central issue in the Crocker v Sundance case?

Select one:

a.Breach of contract

b.Violation of intellectual property rights

c.Negligence

d.Criminal fraud

question 3 What is the duty of care owed by businesses to their customers according to Canadian law?

Select one:

a.To provide the highest quality products

b.To minimize all risks to customers

c.To exercise reasonable care to prevent harm

d.To guarantee customer satisfaction

e.The tort of interference with contract

question 4: In the Crocker v Sundance case, what did the court consider to determine if there was a breach of duty of care?

Select one:

a.The defendant's intentions

b.The plaintiff's financial status

c.Whether the defendant acted reasonably

d.The number of witnesses

e.Whether the plaintiff acted reasonably

question5: In Crocker v Sundance, what did the plaintiff have to prove to establish causation?

Select one:

a.But for the actions of the defendant, the plaintiff would not have been harmed

b.But for the contributory negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff would not have been harmed

c.But for the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff would not have been harmed

d.The plaintiff did not have to prove causation, as this was a strict liability matter

e.The plaintiff had to prove that there was a contractual agreement in order to prove negligence

f.The defendant significantly contributed to the plaintiff's harm