What is the name of the plaintiff and the defendant?
Plaintiff: David Jetz
Defendant: CODA
What are the 3 key issues?
1. Duty of Care
2. Breach of Duty
3. Contributory Negligence
Which party did the judge decide was fully responsible for the accident?
CODA (Calgary Olympic Development Association)
Did we agree with the judge's decisions?
YES!
How did the accident occur?
David Jetz, whilst cycling downhill struck a newly installed speed bump and crashed.
What is the difference between an invitee and a licensee
An invitee is someone who enters premise with the occupier's consent.
A licensee is someone who has implied permission to enter a premise
Why did the judge believe CODA owed the plaintiff a Duty of Care
CODA gave implied permission for Jetz to use the road by leaving the gates unmanned, placing no barriers, and making no effort to prevent cyclists from entering the park. As a result, Jetz was considered a lawful licensee rather than a trespasser, which meant CODA had a duty to protect him from dangers on the property.
What is the Occupiers' Liability Act?
The Occupiers’ Liability Act imposes a duty on property owners to keep their premises reasonably safe for lawful visitors.
How many days prior did CODA install the speed bump?
4 days prior
What is Duty of Care?
Duty of Care is a legal obligation for individuals and organizations to take reasonable steps to avoid causing harm to others and ensure they are safe.
Why did the judge not find the plaintiff to be Contributory Negligent?
Jetz travelled at 30 km/h, within speed limits, braking appropriately, with no reckless conduct. Therefore the accident was not his mistake.
Why did we agree with the judge?
We agreed because CODA owed Jetz a duty of care since he was considered a licensee and not a trespasser. We agree because CODA failed in have proper warnings or safety measures to ensure the safety of citizens using the road. We agree because Jetz was travelling safely and as a reasonable cyclist would do, therefore he made no errors and should not be condemned