Rachel Wang

163297179

A. I understand that my submission for this assignment is to be my own

individual thought and work. I certify that I have only used the specific case
provided to me in this assignment and other content provided directly in this
Course. I certify that I have not researched, accessed, nor used any other
sources including other students' work for my submission.

B. Submit ONLY this document with your answers to the following.

C. Do NOT include the original case with your submission.

1. The facts (5 marks)

 The plaintiff had got seriously injured by falling through the swing of a challenge
course.
 The reason the women fall from the swing due to webbing got cut by fraction that
causes pendulum swing failure.
 The operator did not route the loop and lazy line properly which causes the
fraction.

2. The issue(s) (5 marks)

 Did the resort owe the duty of care to the plaintiff? What is the standard of care
required if duty exist, and was the standard met?
 Is there any case of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff? Was she
willing to take the risk of falling?
 Are resort lies under product liability law? If yes than what standards should be
met?
 Was there any negligence from the part of manufacturer? Is manufacturer having
duty of care, and what standards are required, and was those standards met?

3. The court’s decision (1 mark)

 The court held the resort 100 percent liable for the plaintiff’s injuries due to
negligence in duty of care. There was no liability against the manufacturer.

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

 The resort was responsible for protecting their clients under the occupier liability
act under the trot law. Situating the operator did not properly route the lazy line
and loop. There was there was a waiver signed by plaintiff that held operator
responsible for the safety of plaintiff. The court find the evidence about permitting
equipment without proper guidance. The court has no evidence about resort
having product liability law intact that will help save from liability of injury.

1
5. Conclusion: Do you agree with the outcome? Why or why not? Justify your answer.
(6 marks)
a) Agree/not (1 mark)
 Yes, outcome is agreeable.
b) Why or why not (2 marks)
 Because the operator did not fulfill his duty properly and there was waiver
about operator responsible for safety of riders. From the manufacturer
point of view there was no evidence of product being harmful.
c) Your own personal justification/rationale expanding on why or why not (3
marks)
 There is no doubt about decision being not appropriate legally because
this type of incident can be predicted and taken care of. But it was the
responsibility of resort to provide safety to its guest under the occupier
liability. As of manufacturer he made the product that can cause no harm
and incident happen due to negligence of operator. Under all of
circumstances the decision was legal and ethical.