Analysis of Negligence and Liability in a Law Case Study

This case study presents two legal scenarios involving negligence and liability. The first case, Isildar v. Rideau diving supply, concerns a diving accident where the plaintiff's husband died during a scuba diving course. The court found both the instructor and the dive shop negligent due to insufficient experience and improper site selection, highlighting the importance of proper training and risk assessment. The second case involves Hutchison, who was injured while using a waterslide at Daredevil Park. The court assigned 80% fault to the park due to lack of guidance and 20% to Hutchison for contributory negligence. The case emphasizes the responsibility of businesses to ensure user safety and provide adequate warnings. Both cases underscore the significance of duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages in determining liability.

Running head: LAW
1
Law
Name
Institution

LAW 2
1. The facts
In the case of Isildar v Rideau diving supply
In 2003 on 7th June a 28 year old father, husband and a hardware designer Ali Isildar was
involved in a drowning incidence while attempting his first scuba deep dive; this was a
requisite for accomplishment of the progressive open water scuba training programme
offered by Rideau diving supply. RDS took seven student divers, one assistant and two
instructors by boat to Belly Dumper in St. Lawrence. The recommended water level was 60
foot depth but at this location it was 85 feet deep .When Isildar took long to resurface, Dow
decided to follow him but found him in a state of panic. He had removed his regulator and
tried to grab her regulator, prompting her to return to the surface to seek help. By the time
they retrieved Isildar he was found already dead.
2. Issues
1. Should the defendant, Sarah Dow, be held responsible for the death of the
deceased due to her negligence?
2. Should the defendant, Rideau diving supply be held vicariously liable for
actions of their employees?
3. The judge’s decision
While considering the facts of the case, the court found Dow liable for negligence given
her insufficient experience as an instructor. The court made further findings on her poor
judgement when she to resurface to call for help instead of waiting for the student to lose
consciousness and raise him to the surface. The court also found that the instructors were
negligent in their choice of site. RDS was also found negligent for allowing inexperienced

LAW 3
instructor to supervise students in a high risk activity. The court concluded that the accident
was caused by a chain of misfortunes triggered by RDS choice to send out inexperienced
instructor to supervise students.
4. Reasoning supporting the decision
The court based its decision on Dow’s poor judgement as she was supposed to wait for
five minutes near the diver until he loses consciousness and raise him to the surface. The
court attributed the accident to RDS’s failure to investigate the site before taking the students
there.
5. My opinion
This case displays the necessity of preparation before undertaking any activity involving
high risk. This preparation should start from the institution in charge down to the instructors
in ensuring that all requirements including qualification and experience of both instructors
and students are met.

LAW 4