Knowles v Whistler Mountain Ski Corp.

In April 1989, a honeymooning couple visited Whistler Mountain for a ski vacation. The bride, Pamela Knowles, was a novice who had skied only a few times. Knowles signed up for ski lessons, and rented ski equipment at the resort's ski shop. When she rented her skis, she provided information about her height, weight, and ability level, three factors that dictate how the mechanism that attaches the ski bindings to the boots is to be adjusted. (Safety requires that skis be released from the boots in the event of a hard fall.) Knowles also signed a waiver which released the ski shop from liability and contained the following terms:

3. I agree to hold harmless and indemnify the ski shop and its owners, agents and employees for any loss or damage, including any that results from claims for personal injury or property damage related to the use of this equipment, except reasonable wear and tear.

5. I understand that there are inherent and other risks involved in the sport for which this equipment is to be used, snow skiing, that injuries are a common and ordinary occurrence of the sport, and I freely assume those risks.

6. I understand that the ski-boot-binding system will not release at all times or under all circumstances, nor is it possible to predict every situation in which it will release, and is therefore no guarantee for my safety. [emphasis added]

7. I hereby release the ski shop and its owners, agents and employees from any and all liability for damage and injury to myself or to any person or property resulting from negligence, installation, maintenance, the selection, adjustment, and use of this equipment, accepting myself the full responsibility for any and all such damage or injury which may result.

After a lesson on a mixed novice-intermediate hill with her instructor, Knowles returned later to the same hill with her husband. While skiing the hill, she fell and injured her knee. The ski on her uninjured leg released from her boot and the ski on her injured leg did not.

Knowles sued the ski shop for negligence, alleging incompetence in the adjustment of her equipment. Though she admitted that she had signed the waiver, she alleged that the waiver was unconscionable (unreasonable unfair).

The court reviewed the waiver, and found that it was not unconscionable and the ski shop was entitled to rely on it, thereby avoiding liability for Knowles's injury. The court cited the following factors in support of its decision to uphold the waiver:

- The waiver's wording anticipated and sought to exclude liability for precisely the event that happened: an injury that resulted from bindings failing to release during a fall. It also provided clear disclosure of this risk. - The release was signed under circumstances free of time pressure, duress, or coercion. The injured party knew that she had a choice: she could choose not to sign and not to ski, if she felt that the release was too onerous. - The injured party knew that she was signing a release, read the release, understood the purpose of it and knew that there were risks associated with skiing and with binding adjustment. - Finally, the content and effect of the waiver, and the circumstances in which it was signed, did not deviate from "community standards of commercial morality".

The facts (5 marks)

The issue(s) (5 marks)

• Make sure it is in question format.

The court's decision (1 mark)

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

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

1. Agree/not (1 mark)
2. Why or why not (2 marks)
3. Your own personal justification/rationale expanding on why or why not (3 marks)