Legal Research .

This legal research paper discusses a case of negligence and liability in golf course injury. It covers the common law of tort, duty of care, vicarious liability, and more.

Running head: LEGAL RESEARCH
Legal Research
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1LEGAL RESEARCH
Fact
Gill and Dave used a golf cart to travel between holes as Dave had an injury on his left
knee. The golf cart was not working properly on that day as the brakes had some glitches. Diane
McDonald, an employee of the Great Golf Course Inc. advised Gill and Dave to move the cart as
it was parked on a slope and too close to the fourth hole. Dave informed the employee about his
injured knee and the employee allowed him to keep it parked where it was. After playing the
fourth hole, Dave sat on the driver’s seat of the cart, which was parked on a slope to go to the
fifth hole. Dave accidently pressed the gas pedal while Gill was approaching towards the cart and
in the process Gill got badly injured with a concussion and a broken right arm.
Issue
To determine whether Gill is eligible to sue Dave, Great Golf Course Inc. and Diane
McDonald. In addition, to determine whether the agreement with the Great Golf Course Inc.
absolve the liability of the golf club.
Law
The English Common law, which is still prevalent in Canada and referenced for tortious
liability cases as Canada lacks a strong civil liability law. As per the common law of tort, a
person has been said to fail to execute his duty of care when he bore some duty to care for
another yet his act injured or caused damage to such other person. A person who has shown
negligence by not executing his duty of care would be held guilty under tort law and shall be
liable to compensate the victim1.
Additionally, an institution bears the responsibility to maintain its equipment and
infrastructure, and therefore owes a liability to compensate when a person is injured by a faulty
equipment, notwithstanding anything contained in an agreement, which is signed by a person
when entering such institution [Fenn v. Peterborough (City) (1979), 25 O.R. (2d) 399 (C.A.)].
1 Wright, Jane. Tort law and human rights (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017).

2LEGAL RESEARCH
Moreover, a negligent act of an employee of an institution would attract vicarious
liability of the institution to pay damages to the victim (Bazley v. Curry [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534).
Discussion
In this case, Dave was under the liability to take care of the cart when sitting on the
driver’s seat. His accidental move made the cart roll down the slope, causing injury to Gill. He
was being negligent and failed to execute his duty of care, even knowing that the brakes were not
working properly. He would be held liable for his negligence. On the other hand, Great Golf
Course Inc. had the duty to maintain a good condition of the carts, which it clearly failed to do.
Additionally, Diane McDonald was ignorant of the gravity of the adverse consequence that the
incorrect parking of the cart could possibly do2. Her negligence would cost the golf club to be
liable under the principle of vicarious liability (Doe v. Avalon East School Board [2004] O.J. No.
3042). However, she would not be liable to Gill directly, but to her employer.
Conclusion
Therefore, Gill would be eligible to sue Dave and Great Golf Course Inc. and not Diane
McDonald.
2 Bell, John. "The basis of vicarious liability." The Cambridge Law Journal 72, no. 1 (2013): 17-20.

3LEGAL RESEARCH
Bibliography
Primary source: Case law
Bazley v. Curry [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534
Doe v. Avalon East School Board [2004] O.J. No. 3042
Fenn v. Peterborough (City) (1979), 25 O.R. (2d) 399 (C.A.)
Neely v. MacDonald, 2014 ONCA 874
Secondary source: Book
Wright, Jane. Tort law and human rights (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017)
Secondary source: Journal
Bell, John. "The basis of vicarious liability." The Cambridge Law Journal 72, no. 1 (2013): 17-
20