Judges' decisions are customarily written and therefore recorded in books used for legal research. These written decisions are called cases, and the books in which they are published are called case books. These cases are part of the common law. You will read many cases in your study of Hospitality Law. Although at first, they may seem difficult to understand you will soon develop the skill necessary to read them with a high level of comprehension. To understand a case you should attempt to identify four elements as you read it: 1. The facts 2. Issue 3. The judge's decision 4. The reasoning supporting the decision. 5. Conclusion The facts are those circumstances that gave rise to the lawsuit. The issue is the legal question that the parties have asked the judge to resolve. The decision is the judge's response to the issue. The reasoning is the basis and rationale for the decision. After reading the case, consider its implications vis--vis stare decisis, the decision, although involving unknown parties, inform hospitality managers how the law will be applied to their own situations. This enables innkeepers and restaurateurs to predict how the law will be interpreted and to prevent legal disputes before they arise. By understanding the implications of cases, the manager or owner can modify company policies and actions to conform to the law. The conclusion states whether you agree or disagree with the judge's decision and why by writing supporting details.

CASE STUDY: Anatomy of an Accident: Isildar V Rideau Diving Supply

On June 7, 2003, 28-year-old husband, father, and hardware designer Ali Isildar drowned while attempting his first scuba "deep dive," a requirement for completion of the advanced open water (AOW) scuba training program offered by Rideau Diving Supply (RDS). Isildar's widow and child brought a lawsuit against various parties after the accident. Before trial, all claims were either dropped or settled except for the claim against RDS. On June 7, after performing a night dive and a wreck dive (other AOW requirements) the day before, RDS took a group of seven student divers, two instructors, and one assistant by boat to a site in the St. Lawrence River known as the Belly Dumper. The water at this location was 85 feet deep, considerably deeper than the 60-foot depth deep-dive requirement. The water was very cold, and the bottom was silty.

The divers descended in groups, and because of their inexperience, the first group "thundered" to the bottom, causing a silt cloud in the area. When Isildar descended with his buddy, visibility was very poor. While swimming, Isildar kicked off his buddy's facemask. By the time the buddy replaced his mask, he could no longer find Isildar, and so he followed instructions and surfaced. The instructor, Sarah Dow, then descended to find Isildar. Dow discovered Isildar in a state of panic. He had removed his regulator and was grabbing at her regulator and mask. Down returned to the surface for help. By the time other divers found and retrieved Isildar, he was dead or unconscious, and did not respond to CPR after being pulled from the water.

While the cause of Isildar's death was drowning, the specific cause of drowning was never determined. Isildar had enough air remaining in his tank to permit him to surface safely, and Dow had found him by following a trail of bubbles. However, cold water, silty conditions, pressure on the body and ears, and nitrogen narcosis (which affects some divers at depths below 60 feet) have all been known to cause a perception of air starvation on the part of divers. This perception can lead to overexertion, overbreathing, panic, and irrational behavior.

In considering all the facts of the case, the court found that Dow was negligent in attempting the deep dive with her students because she had insufficient experience as an instructor. The court also found that her decision to surface for help amounted to poor judgment, since it is often more appropriate to wait near a panicked diver until the diver loses consciousness, after which the instructor has four or five minutes to raise the diver to the surface.

The court also found that the instructors were negligent in their choice of site for the deep dive, in failing to investigate site conditions (especially the silty bottom), and in their decisions about which instructor would supervise which students and which students would be paired as buddies. Finally, the court found that RDS was negligent in allowing an instructor with Dow's limited experience to supervise students in a dive with the risk level that this dive entailed. A well-drafted and clearly communicated release of liability (waiver) protected the company and its staff from liability in this case, even though the court made a clear finding of negligence against the defendant. Nevertheless, this case is very useful from a learning point of view: it demonstrates that it is possible for an accident to have not just one cause but a long list of possible causes. The relevant causes in this case are set out below.

Environmental/natural factors:

- Excessive water depth for a beginner deep dive

- Very cold water temperatures - Strong currents at the bottom

- An (unexpectedly) silty bottom Equipment factors:

- An inappropriate amount of lead weight carried by the diver and/or his buddy

- Lack of familiarity with rented equipment

- Lack of familiarity, on the part of the diver's buddy, with unusual/outdated equipment

Dive factors:

- Early signs of Hashimoto's disease in the diver, which is sometimes characterized by anxiety

- Susceptibility of the diver to nitrogen narcosis

- Trouble clearing the diver's ears (and the decision to dive anyway)

Instructor/personnel factors:

- Lack of instructor experience with dive site

- Lack of instructor experience with diving and rescuing

- Too many students per instructor

- Lack of instructor training about dealing with panicked divers

- Lack of instructor experience with low visibility

- Absence or a "clean diver" (diver with a full tank) on the boat to cope with emergencies

Faced with such a long list of possible contributors to the accident, the court determined that the accident was caused by a chain of misfortunes that would not have been set in motion but for RDS's decision to put Sarah Dow and Chris Miller - inexperienced instructors - in charge of the AOW course. This case makes it clear that while accidents can have multiples causes, a single poor decision on the part of a recreation provider can act as a catalyst for the interaction of risk factors, with tragic consequences.

1. The facts(5 marks)

2. The issue(s)(5 marks)

(Make sure it is in question format.)

3. The court's decision (1 mark)

4. The court's reasoning supporting the decision (3 marks)

5. Conclusion: Do you agree with the outcome? Why or why not? Justify your answer. (6 marks)

a) Agree/not(1 mark)

b) Why or why not (2 marks)

c) Your own personal justification/rationale expanding on why or why not (3 marks)