Business Law: Negligence and Liability Waiver in Hoof Hearted Adventures Case

This article discusses the legal principles involved in the Hoof Hearted Adventures case, essential elements of negligence, defenses available, kinds of damages that can be claimed, and important evidence. It concludes that Hoof Hearted Adventures can be held liable for negligence.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Following are the issue that has been identified in this case:
1. The legal principles involved in this case.
2. The essential elements of negligence in the case.
3. Defenses that Hoof Hearted Adventures has.
4. Kinds of damages that Brandon could claim.
5. Five important evidence and their relevance.
Issue 1. The principle of negligence has been applied in this case.
Issue 2. Negligence is referred to the act or omission to do something which a reasonable
man would do or not do in such situation (Cornford, 2016). To prove negligence the four
elements must be present namely, duty of care, breach of duty, causation and harm suffered.
To avoid such an act, a person must exercise the standard of care that is expected from a
reasonable, prudent and ordinary man in the same situation.
Issue 3. In this case Hoof Hearted Adventures may claim a defense for their breach of duty,
as they had signed a liability waiver by Brandon. The duty of care can be waived by signing a
liability waiver from the injury. In the case of Loychuk v Cougar Mountain Adventures
Limited, the Court decided that a proper liability waiver is the one which is understood and
signed by a participant in every senses and it can protect an organisation from the liability of
injury caused by the negligence of its employees (Liability Waiver Upheld by B.C. Court Of
Appeal, 2018). However, such liability waiver cannot be enforceable in every case to avoid
the liability arising out of a negligence that causes or would cause harm (Canliiconnects.org,
2014). In the case of Niedermeyer v. Chartlon, 2014 BCCA 165, the Court held that a liability
waiver drafted for the purpose to release the liability of the service provider for an injury
sustained in the transit shall be contrary to public policy and not enforceable.

2BUSINESS LAW
Issue 4. Brandon could claim punitive damages and special damages as to the medical bills
from Hoof hearted Adventures as the employee was aware that the saddle was taken from a
stall where the damaged saddles were kept. The employee, in this case, who gave the
damaged saddle to Brandon in a rush cannot escape from his duty of care that he owed to
Brandon during his course of business as the waiver of liability form that Brandon signed, he
did it in a hurry, without properly understanding it. He omitted from doing his duty to take
due care for the participant and check the equipment they were using for horse riding.
Issue 5. There are five evidences that Hood Hearted Adventure is liable for the incident,
firstly, the liability waiver was drafted in such a way to escape any such risks. Secondly, the
employee was aware that Brandon did not read and understood the waiver thoroughly.
Thirdly, the employee at the same time handed the equipment to Brandon, which belongs to
the damaged stall. Fourthly, the employee was bound to inspect each equipment before
giving it to the participant, which he never did. Lastly, Hood Hearted Adventure should not
have allowed a person to participate who came late for the horse riding and rush into it in a
hurry.
Therefore, it can be concluded that Brandon can held Hoof Hearted Adventures Ltd
liable for negligence.

3BUSINESS LAW
References:
Canliiconnects.org. (2014). Tort; Negligence; Waiver of Liability; Public Policy. [online]
Available at: http://canliiconnects.org/fr/r%C3%A9sum%C3%A9/29586 [Accessed 7
Oct. 2018].
Cornford, T. (2016). Towards a public law of tort. Routledge.
Liability Waiver Upheld by B.C. Court Of Appeal. (2018). Retrieved from
http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/charity/2012/chylb284.htm
Loychuk v Cougar Mountain Adventures Limited 2012 BCCA 122
Niedermeyer v. Chartlon, 2014 BCCA 165