Call us now
The customer that elects to the risky challenge that has been offered at a given entertainment/recreation facility, usually needs to sign a waiver. The signee waives the right to sue that same facility in most situations, but not in all situations.
What the signee can still demand?
The man or woman that signs such a waiver retains the right to demand a reasonable standard of care. In other words, the presence of known risks cannot get used as an excuse for harsh treatment. Consequently, any challenges must arise from the nature of the presented challenge, and not from some type of added interference.
Suppose, for example, that a customer chose to pay for the chance to have a skydiving experience. In that case, the challenge would arise from the fact that the participant in such an activity must jump out of a plane, while wearing a parachute. If someone tried to mess with the parachute, that would qualify as an added interference.
If the amateur sky diver got hurt, due to the defect in the parachute, the facility’s readiness to get paid for a defective parachute would cancel out the implied promise in any waiver. In other words, the customer that had to deal with, and may have been injured by the added interference would still have a right to sue the facility that charged those that wanted to have a skydiving experience.
Could a customer get charged with contributory negligence?
Before hitting any customer with that charge, a court would need to examine the extent to which both sides strived to maintain an acceptable standard of care. Were the customers provided with good-functioning equipment. Were the customers able to enjoy a safe location? If so, the facility offered an acceptable standard of care.
Did the customer adhere to any restrictions given to those that were participating in a given activity? Did the customer stay within a confined space, or did that same customer venture beyond a given a barrier? A customer’s readiness to go beyond an obvious barrier would qualify as an example of contributory negligence.
Suppose, though, that the barrier crossed by the negligent customer had not been made obvious. In that case, both the customer’s negligence and the facility’s negligence would have combined to create a dangerous situation. The personal injury lawyer in Collingwood know that if that danger accounted for the fact that the injured customer chose to sue, the customer’s award would be reduced.
The customer had ventured into a region beyond a recognized safe zone. Due to the existence of evidence that the customer’s curiosity had exceeded any common sense, the entertainment/recreation center would have grounds for charging that same venturesome customer with failure to adhere to a reasonable standard of care.