Discussion Forum #5 - Case Study: Tort Law

In January 2015, a Kamloops woman sued Sun Peaks Resort Corporation after breaking her leg on the resort’s tubing terrain. The incident took place in 2013.

In court documents, Pamela Boileau said she visited the resort with her husband and two young children to use the tube park, where, she claimed, no signs were posted restricting the age of children allowed to use the facility. She then took a ride with her husband and their baby.

According to her filing, “the ride was very fast and bumpy and the tubes went high on the berm and then hit a big bump and the plaintiff’s infant daughter went flying out of her tube” (Petriuk, 2015). In order to help her daughter, Boileau stopped the tube she was riding in abruptly and broke her leg in multiple places.

According to Boileau, the next day the resort erected signage prohibiting children under four years of age from using the tubing park. She sued for general damages, special damages and interest, and money for past and future health care. The lawsuit named Sun Peaks Resort Corporation and four employees in the claim.

Based on this description of the claim, as circulated in the media, answer the following questions to the best of your ability:

1. What evidence is there that staff at the resort had engaged in the four stages of risk identification? For each stage, note what the resort could have done differently.
2. What were the real, perceived, and inherent risks of using the tube park? How would these be different for an adult participating in tubing and a small child?
3. In your opinion, has the plaintiff established the following? Why or why not?
   1. Injury
   2. Duty to care
   3. Breach in the standard of care
   4. Causation
4. Would a waiver have made a difference? Explain why or why not.
5. Search the internet to find the details of this case and any updates on what happened with the parties involved. How did the outcome differ from what you expected?
6. What is your personal feeling about who is responsible for the injury in this case? How does that differ from what the law has to say?