Sterfan Jia Jie Zhu Zhu

124394206

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 suffered a major injury after falling through a swing on a
challenge course.
 The woman was fall off the swing because the webbing has been cut by a
fraction of loop and lazy line, resulting in the breakdown of the pendulum swing.
 The reason for that reaction was negligence on the behalf of operator as operator
did not properly route the loop and lazy line.

2. The issue(s) (5 marks)

 Was there any waiver signed? What was the consideration of operator under
waiver? Are those consideration met?
 Was the resort obligated to the duty of care to the plaintiff? If a duty exists, what
is the level of care that must be reached, and was the standard satisfied?
 In this instance, is there any evidence that the plaintiff was committed for
contributory negligence? Was she willing to put herself at danger of falling?
 Do resort subject to product liability law? If so, what requirements need be
followed to do so?
 Was there any kind of negligence on the side of the manufacturing company? Is
there a duty of care on the part of the manufacturer, and if so, what standards
are necessary, and were those criteria met?

3. The court’s decision (1 mark)

 The resort was found 100% liable for the injuries of plaintiff, but manufacturer has
no liability on injury of plaintiff.

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

 Under the trot law, the resort was accountable for protecting its customers under
the occupier liability act. The lazy line and loop were not appropriately routed due
to the operator's negligence. There was a waiver signed by plaintiff that made

1
 operator accountable for plaintiff's safety. The proof concerning permitting
equipment without sufficient guidance was found by the court. The court has no
evidence that the resort has a product liability statute in place that will protect it
from damage liability. The court did not find out that there is any negligence from
the part of manufacturer.

5. Conclusion: Do you agree with the outcome? Why or why not? Justify your answer.
(6 marks)
a) Agree/not (1 mark)
 Yes, I agree with the outcome
b) Why or why not (2 marks)
 Because the operator failed to perform his duties effectively and there was
a waiver stating that the operator was liable for the users' safety. There
was no proof of the product being dangerous and can hurt someone.
c) Your own personal justification/rationale expanding on why or why not (3
marks)
 The court has provided an appropriate legal decision because the nature
of the incident can be predicted easily, and necessary actions can be
taken care of. As resort was responsible for providing the safety to the
customer under occupier liability. As manufacturer has provided the
product that can give no harm to the public if used properly so this proves
no negligence on the part of manufacturer. Under all of circumstances the
decision was legal and ethical.