Paper Example on 19-Year-Old Paralyzed After Trampoline Park Accident

Introduction

The complainant, in this case, is 19-year-old Landon Smith who was involved in an accident while at a birthday party at Jump Park Trampoline in Sherwood Park, Alberta. The accident left him paralyzed from the chest downwards. As per Ohler (2019), Mr. Smith said he "could feel the concrete; it felt like spinal stun, similar to two cymbals hit me in the head." The plaintiff has since moved to court to sue the company (Ohler, 2019). He is seeking compensation for income loss, the loss of earning ability, Medicare cost, and the pain and suffering him and his family has experienced.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Link of story

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/he-s-determined-to-walk-out-of-here-teen-breaks-neck-at-trampoline-park-1.3929347

Legal criteria for establishing liability due to negligence

To push the case further, the complainant must prove the following elements to demonstrate that the respondent acted negligently:

Duty

The first step when evaluating a negligence claim is to determine if the litigant owed the complainant a legitimate obligation of consideration. In certain conditions, the connection between the two parties may create a legitimate obligation. For example, doctors owe their patients a lawful obligation to provide them with competent medicinal care. Alternatively, the respondent may owe the complainant a lawful obligation to act with sensible consideration in a specific circumstance.

Breach

The court will check if the respondent breached this obligation by doing (or not accomplishing something) that a "sensibly reasonable individual" would do under comparable conditions. A "sensibly reasonable individual" refers to a lawful level that describes how a normal individual would dependably act in a specific circumstance. The litigant likely will be proved negligent if the normal individual, comprehending what the respondent knew at the time, would have realized that somebody may have been harmed because of his or her activities - and would have acted uniquely compared to how the respondent did in that circumstance.

Causation

This element demands that the complainant must demonstrate that the litigant's negligence is the actual cause to his injury. Anyone may act carelessly, however the jurist is interested in seeing how the carelessness caused the injury. Also, the element evaluates if the respondent could sensibly have predicted that his activities may have led to the injury. If the respondent's activities somehow caused the complainant's injury through an arbitrary, unforeseen demonstration of nature, the damage would probably be regarded unpredictable, and the litigant will be absolved from blame.

Damages

Damages comes in last in the negligence case. This component necessitates that the court have the option to repay the offended party for his or her damage - for the most part through fiscal remuneration for costs, for example, restorative consideration or property fix.

All possible plaintiff(s) incase negligence is proved

The main complainant in the case is Mr. Landon Smith. Others could be anyone that attended the birthday party at the premises. Also, Mr. Landon's parents and family could apply to be considered as complainants to the case.

All possible defendant(s) incase negligence is proved

The main defendant is Jump Park Trampoline. Other defendants such as staff on duty during the accident could be enjoined as defendants. Furthermore, the trampoline and foam pit manufacturers could likewise be advised, as could the proprietors of the premises that the mishap happened, if it does not belong to Jump Park Trampoline.

First criterion for establishing liability due to negligence

Firstly, the responsibility of care is needed for negligence; this is the thing that controls the extent of accountability. As per Buckley (2006), Section 5 of the Occupiers' Liability Act on Duty of care to guests states that;

An occupant of an establishment is obliged to ensure safety and attention to all the visitors on the site. It is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe to use the establishment for the purposes for which the occupant is permitted to be there by law.

It is all right to suppose that a client utilizing the premises, as it is meant, would hope to be sensibly safe, and is subsequently owed an obligation of consideration. The jurist will question whether the responsibility of consideration inquiry has been addressed. According to McInnes, Kerr, and VanDuzer (2013), "In case the obligation of consideration question is still pending for this specific case, it will be important to pose inquiries to establish if or not an obligation of consideration should be applied." The questions include:

• If it was sensibly predictable that the litigant's negligence could harm the complainant?
• Did both individuals share a relationship of adequate closeness?

If the damage was sensibly predictable, and if both parties shared a relationship of adequate closeness, then an obligation of consideration apparently will be applied. However, McInnes, Kerr, and VanDuzer (2013) argue that "the justice may in any case repulse a duty of care, based on policy reasons."

Second criterion for establishing liability due to negligence

Next, to that, the complainant must demonstrate that the respondent broke the obligation of consideration, and acted imprudently. The reasonable person test can be utilized to achieve this by establishing whether the business "acted in a similar fashion a reasonable person would act in comparable conditions" (McInnes, Kerr, & VanDuzer, 2013). The courts would then ascertain whether the insurances the business took against any reasonably predictable dangers were satisfactory since the reasonable person does not protect against each possible threat. The sensible individual is affected by both the probability of mischief and the potential seriousness of the damage. Special consideration is needed in case the possibility of injury is higher rather than lower.

Third criterion for establishing liability due to negligence

Lastly, the cause of the injury must be proved. However, this does not guarantee that the defendant will be held responsible; only proving that the business' imprudence caused Mr. Smith to endure a loss will. To achieve this, the complainant can apply the but-for test to demonstrate that the business' carelessness caused him to be paralyzed from the chest down. If the complainant can manage a fifty plus one percent chance to show this, then the court will grant him the compensation he is seeking. Consequently, it is crucial for the complainant to prove that the defendant's carelessness caused him the injury. He does not need to demonstrate that it was the leading cause.

The tort defenses that apply to negligence

"The tort of negligence decides if the litigant can be held responsible for imprudently making the complainant endure a loss or injury" (McInnes, Kerr, & VanDuzer, 2013). It needs confirmation of three components:

• An obligation of consideration
• A break in the quality of care, and
• The cause of damage

As per Buckley (2006), Section 1 of the Occupiers Liability Act Grants Jump Park Trampoline the sole responsibility, "for, and authority over, the state of the site, the exercises directed on it and the people allowed to access the premises." Furthermore, as earlier stated, Section 5 of the same Act mandates the respondent to ensure visitor safety and care while on the business premises. Moreover, on their official website, the business states that safety is their supremacy, they have developed principles for clients to pursue when utilizing their facility to guarantee that everybody has a safe and fun experience.

In an attempt to guarantee the public that they are not breaching the quality standards of care, the Jump Park Trampoline has floated its rules and regulations on their official website. A few examples of the rules include: bans imposed on diving, flips, double flips or reverse somersaults in the foam pit; advice to avoid landing on either the head, neck or stomach; and bans on jumps in the absence of a Fun Park worker (Us et al., 2019). Furthermore, the website includes the following message, "We ask that you become acquainted with our standards and pursue our guidelines." Subsequently, everyone must have a signed permit, including children under 18 who should seek them from their parents or guardians before accessing any of our attractions. This is assuming are hanged in the lobby area before the admission of visitors. The assumption is based on such initiatives being taken in other similar trampoline fun parks in the country.

The Jump Park Trampoline company issued a statement implying that its staff practiced practical consideration, alertness, and expertise in managing the premises and the foam pit. "It was in a safe and fitting state for use by anyone, including Mr. Landon Smith during the unfortunate day and time" (Ohler, 2019). The statement absolves the business from any damages caused to the complainant. The three most significant negligence defenses include:

• Contributory negligence
• Willful presumption of risk and
• Lawlessness.

For this situation, the business could utilize both contributory carelessness and willful suspicion of risk as their defense.

To begin with, they could state that Mr. Landon Smith was incomplete to fault for his wounds as he disregarded the rules of the recreation center, explicitly "banning jumps, flips, twofold flips or reverse somersaults in the froth pit" and "disregarded all park safety guidelines and directions from the fun park representatives." This depends on the presumption that the rules are hanged on sheets in the lobby room. Additionally, customers of the fun park are approached to sign a waiver preceding their admission into the premises. Accordingly, by marking this waiver, Mr. Landon Smith willfully accepted the unpredictable risks for his activities in the park. According to Buckley (2006), Section 7 of the Occupiers Liability Act states that "An occupant is not under a commitment to release the normal obligation of consideration to a guest in regard of dangers readily acknowledged by the guest." If a Jump Park worker made a reasonable endeavor to make Landon Smith mindful of the waiver terms, at that point, the respondent could be absolved from blame. Nonetheless, there is no sign from the news report that Mr. Landon Smith or the company he was with was engaged with any unlawful exercises while at the recreation center, so the barrier is not material to this situation.

References

Buckley, R. A., (2006). Occupiers' liability in England and Canada. Common Law World Review, 35(3), 197-215.

McInnes, M., Kerr, I. R., & VanDuzer, J. A. (2013). Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business. Pearson Education, Canada.

Ohler, Q. (2019). Alberta man sues trampoline park for $15M after breaking neck. Retrieved from https://globalnews.ca/news/3971903/alberta-man-sues-trampoline-park-for-15m-after-breaking-neck March 24, 2018

Us, L., Tickets, B., Pricing, P., Programs, A., Blog, O., & Franchise, C. et al. (2019). Safety | Fun Park Amusement Center - Trampoline Park. Retrieved from https://funparkcanada.ca/safety