Assignment #1
Question 1
The key question in this incident is whether Blizzard Resorts Inc. brought up the contract of the signed ticket on the reverse side and has provided sufficient notice of the liability exclusion to participants.
Due to the behavior of this incident was not done deliberately or on purpose, and it happened by accident on the occupier’s land of Blizzard Resorts; Katharine would have to establish the right to recover compensation for the tort of occupier’s liability from Blizzard Resorts Inc. To prove the elements of a negligence action in this case, she must prove that Blizzard Resorts Inc. owed her duty of care, breached the required standard of care, and caused suffered injury or damage.
Blizzard Resorts Inc. owed …show more content…
does owe the duty of care to Mitchie while seen as a trespasser as he entered the resort through the backfield after consuming several drinks. After discovering Mitchie stumbling, loud and boisterous at the top of the hill, the race organizer and the attendant informed him about participating yet he ignored the staff and entered the line of contestants to participate in the race after being told to leave. Therefore continuing in his activity after being properly warned, he would have voluntarily assumed the risk and Blizzard Resorts would not be held liable for any resulting damages that had occurred. The only duty of care required from Blizzard Resorts to Mitchie was to not create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm or damage, in which Blizzard had not, Blizzard Resort employees properly warned him before the incident …show more content…
did not fall below the standard of care in this circumstance because Mitchie was warned that he could not participate in the race, but when the Blizzard Resorts attendant back was turned, Mitchie entered the line of contestants untested. Blizzard Resorts didn’t realize he was part of the race otherwise he would have participated in the race. Mitchie may argue that Blizzard didn’t stop the next group of racers coming down the hill, but perhaps because they did not know Mitchie was injured on the hill. Blizzard Resorts Inc. did not fall below the standard of care as they took reasonable precaution at the top of the hill to prevent people who deem not capable to participate.
As the result of the collision, Mitchie sustained a broken nose, lacerations to his face and also a broken leg after hit by the next group of racers coming down the hill. If Blizzard is liable, they will have to compensate Mitchie for $500,000.00 for the injuries sustained so he can return back to his normal form, but Blizzard Resorts did not cause the damages since their organizers and attendants attempted their best to stop Mitchie from participating in the race.
In conclusion, Mitchie will not be able to prove that Blizzard Resorts Inc. owed him the duty of care cause he voluntarily assumed the risk after proceeding at his own will, therefore Blizzards Resorts will likely not be responsible of the liability of Mitchie for injury or loss suffered to their premises as only 3 out
Question 1
The key question in this incident is whether Blizzard Resorts Inc. brought up the contract of the signed ticket on the reverse side and has provided sufficient notice of the liability exclusion to participants.
Due to the behavior of this incident was not done deliberately or on purpose, and it happened by accident on the occupier’s land of Blizzard Resorts; Katharine would have to establish the right to recover compensation for the tort of occupier’s liability from Blizzard Resorts Inc. To prove the elements of a negligence action in this case, she must prove that Blizzard Resorts Inc. owed her duty of care, breached the required standard of care, and caused suffered injury or damage.
Blizzard Resorts Inc. owed …show more content…
does owe the duty of care to Mitchie while seen as a trespasser as he entered the resort through the backfield after consuming several drinks. After discovering Mitchie stumbling, loud and boisterous at the top of the hill, the race organizer and the attendant informed him about participating yet he ignored the staff and entered the line of contestants to participate in the race after being told to leave. Therefore continuing in his activity after being properly warned, he would have voluntarily assumed the risk and Blizzard Resorts would not be held liable for any resulting damages that had occurred. The only duty of care required from Blizzard Resorts to Mitchie was to not create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm or damage, in which Blizzard had not, Blizzard Resort employees properly warned him before the incident …show more content…
did not fall below the standard of care in this circumstance because Mitchie was warned that he could not participate in the race, but when the Blizzard Resorts attendant back was turned, Mitchie entered the line of contestants untested. Blizzard Resorts didn’t realize he was part of the race otherwise he would have participated in the race. Mitchie may argue that Blizzard didn’t stop the next group of racers coming down the hill, but perhaps because they did not know Mitchie was injured on the hill. Blizzard Resorts Inc. did not fall below the standard of care as they took reasonable precaution at the top of the hill to prevent people who deem not capable to participate.
As the result of the collision, Mitchie sustained a broken nose, lacerations to his face and also a broken leg after hit by the next group of racers coming down the hill. If Blizzard is liable, they will have to compensate Mitchie for $500,000.00 for the injuries sustained so he can return back to his normal form, but Blizzard Resorts did not cause the damages since their organizers and attendants attempted their best to stop Mitchie from participating in the race.
In conclusion, Mitchie will not be able to prove that Blizzard Resorts Inc. owed him the duty of care cause he voluntarily assumed the risk after proceeding at his own will, therefore Blizzards Resorts will likely not be responsible of the liability of Mitchie for injury or loss suffered to their premises as only 3 out