In the end, the court, based on the facts and arguments of the usual use of the zipline and the plaintiff’s conduct, dismissed the case. [...] When the moderator squarely put the almost certain legal effect of the signing of a comprehensive waiver of liability before the group and explained that it meant that the business would in no way be liable, no matter the consequences of the business’s own negligence or that of their employees, no matter what, and that the consumer would get nothing in a legal action (not even a partial amount), p. [...] The focus group participant was emotionally engaged by the question but “changed the game” by changing the assumptions of the question, in order to raise a factual situation that could be outside of the core activity (driving to the ski hill, not the skiing at the ski hill); could result in individual liability of the driver (not the school board or ski school) as possibly the driver conduct could. [...] Nothing turns on the facts or the circumstances; nothing “varies”: the duty has been disclaimed in writing and the court will not examine the facts or law in relation to it until after it considers the effect of the waiver – which may be to preclude the tort analysis. [...] Besides reducing the potential scope of this duty to the persons reasonably close in proximity to be foreseeably harmed by substandard conduct (see the “neighbour” principle above), the law in this area also requires “causation” – that is, the conduct of the defendant had to have a reasonable relation to the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
Mentioned Organizations
- Pages
- 98
- Published in
- Canada
