McQueen v. Alberta 2001 ABQB 220 Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

McQueen v. Alberta 2001 ABQB 220 Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

The 32-year-old plaintiff, David McQueen, went to Sikome Lake Provincial Park with his three children and some friends in June 1994. Sikome Lake, near Calgary, is one of two artificial swimming lakes in Alberta. Carrying his two- and three-year-old sons, McQueen waded into the lake a distance of 3 to 5 m toward a skimmer platform (a water-intake mechanism to recycle and clean the water). On reaching the platform, he put each child on the edge of the platform and stepped up to the top. He then dove in headfirst, breaking his neck, which rendered him a paraplegic.

The plaintiff sued the province and the city of Calgary for damages for his injuries. Evidence at trial indicated that McQueen and his children had been at Sikome Lake on previous occasions. Several lifeguards were on duty at the time of the accident, and No Diving signs were posted.

McQueen testified that he did not know how deep the water was, and he thought it was safe to dive when he looked down and couldn't see the bottom of the lake. He also admitted that he had consumed about 750 mL of rum the night before,

He had finally gone to bed at 4:30 A.M., andgot up at 7:00 A.M. with his sons. McQueen's blood-alcohol level was 148 when he was treated in hospital for his accident. McQueen claimed the province and the city were negligent and he sued for damages for his injuries. His action was dismissed.

For Discussion

1. What duty of care did the defendants owe McQueen, and was there a breach of it? Explain.

2. What was the cause of this accident? Was it reasonably foreseeable?

3. The trial judge stated: "Although this Court is very sympathetic to Mr. McQueen in relation to the tragedy that has befallen him and his family, there is no basis at law upon which this Court can attribute any responsibility to the defendant for that loss." Why do you think the action was dismissed?

(a) Facts (name of the case and its parties, what happened factually and procedurally, and the judgment)

(b) Issues (what is in dispute)

(c) Holding (the applied rule of law)

(d) Rationale (reasons for the holding)

(e) Answers to questions posed