ASSIGNMENT 1

NAME: Nishith Amit Suratwala

ACAEDEMIC INSTITUTION: George Brown College

PROFESSOR NAME: Charlotte Goldfried

DATE: 8th February 2023

 PARTIES

Pam Melsness, Mount Seymour Resorts Limited, and Peter Kralik are the defendants in the

action or lawsuit. Melsness and Mount Seymour Resorts Limited are the defendants, and Mr.

Kralik is the plaintiff.

FACTS

Mr. Kralik, a 45-year-old man with prior skiing experience, made the decision to use the skiing

chair before lunch when visiting Mount Seymour with his son in the morning. As they waited to

board, the chairs slowly passed by them. The chairs covered a distance of 5.4 metres in 3.2

seconds at their maximum speed. While ascending, this is roughly 18 feet long. As they sat

down, Mr. Kralik observed snow and ice on his chair and futilely attempted to wipe it off. When

the chair began to rise, he was still standing and only realised later that he was at the edge of the

loading ramp. His son Thomas attempted to approach him but was unsuccessful. But the chair

didn't stop going up. Mr. Kralik reasoned that it would be safer to let go of the chair from a

distance of three feet rather than climb much higher to the top, which would be riskier. His right

shoulder was hurt as a result of this. Right-handed Mr. Kralik is a human being.

Peter was in pain until Ms Melsness, who was also on duty and a lift attendant, reached out to

him and assisted him in climbing to the top of the embankment. Later, she made a ski patrol call,

and Mr. Traslin, a patroller, took Peter to the first aid facility. According to Ms. Melsness, Peter

and his son were getting ready to get on the chairs as Peter was removing ice off his seat, which

she believes was damp. She agrees to pay closer attention to the kids seated on the seats behind

Peter. Peter wasn't sitting when the chair began to rise, she also saw. However, she knew the
chair had stopped when Peter was getting close to the ramp's edge, so she clicked the stop button

at that point and moved her focus to another youngster who was boarding. She was only certain

that the chair would stop, but she had no idea when. Later, when she shifted her gaze to Peter,

she was unable to see him, which prompted her to search for him. She further asserts that it was

everyone's responsibility to clean the chair and that it was never previously her responsibility for

anyone to go to the edge of the ramp.

Mr. Gow provided proof indicating it takes the chair a little time to stop once you push the

stopping button.

ISSUES

The trial judge concluded that Ms. Melsness was unreliable in her area of work because she

failed to recognise Peter's boarding difficulties and failed to concentrate on him as she should

have on other kids. The accident might not have occurred if she had been able to stop the chair

earlier and paid closer attention. According to the judge, Ms. Melsness was also judged to have

been negligent for failing to promptly clean the chairs, but anyone might have done the same

given the icy conditions. Because of the employee and the fact that just one person was present at

the boarding area rather than hiring a second person to assist with customer care, Mount

Seymour was judged to be indirectly at fault for the accident. The defendant's council further

determined Mr. Klalik to be negligent because the occurrence would not have occurred if he had

seated properly in the chair.

Being an experienced skier, he was also aware of the implications of his conduct, therefore it was

determined that his recklessness was to blame for his injury. According to the medical records,
Peter underwent surgery to treat his broken arm. Due to the injuries to his right arm, he decided

to leave his career as a painter and try out other jobs. The doctor asserts that despite his right arm

being somewhat weak, he can perform minor tasks with it.

DESCISIONS

The trial judge upheld Mr. Klarik, the plaintiff, in his decision following an appeal. The judge

finds that the chair was not stopped as quickly as Ms. Melsness stated, and if she had focused

more on Peter, he would not have been able to slip off the side of the ramp. In addition, by

halting the chair in time, Peter could grasp onto it even if it was at the edge of the ramp and

receive assistance from the rescue crew. Peter was to get $300,000 in compensation for his losses

as a result of the accident, for which the judge found the defendant entirely at fault.

REASONS

The court disallowed making a distinction between negligence and a lack of attentiveness. It was

disregarded that negligence, which is always the result of a lack of care, varies depending on the

conditions from different people, places, and times. Additionally, it was decided against

awarding compensation to the plaintiff after they lost their ability to make money on the grounds

that they had been robbed of that asset.

 OPINIONS

I concur with the court's judgement in this matter. The defendant misinterpreted something with

negligence. Because of the defendant's carelessness, Mr. Klarik suffered damage. Although the

defendant's misunderstanding was not accurate, the plaintiff should not be entitled to 100% of

the cost of the damages.