Question

Negligence and Strict Liability-But What If...

A Rock Climbing company, Rocky’s, takes many customers on rock climbing expeditions on the northern rim of the Grand Canyon. When James and Jenny signed up for an expedition, they were warned that rock-climbing was a dangerous activity. Additionally, James and Jenny signed a contract stating that during the climbing, they could possibly suffer from injury and, in the worst case scenario, death. The contract stated that James and Jenny assumed the risks posed by the expedition. James and Jenny went on the expedition, and on the fourth day of climbing, James’ rope get lodged between two sharp rocks, eventually ripped, and James fell 30 feet, breaking both of his legs on landing. James decided to take Rocky’s to court, alleging that the company had been negligent, by having not paid sufficient attention to the quality of the climbing rope they had used. Further, James’ attorney argued that it was a foreseeable result of the rock-climbing expedition that James might suffer harm. Rocky’s, however, defended that he was not liable for the injuries incurred by James as James and Jenny has signed contracts in which they assumed the risks of the expedition. The court found Rocky’s not liable on grounds that Rocky’s had warned James and Jenny of the potential risks of the activity, and that the customers had agreed to assume the risks in writing.

But what if the facts of the case were different? Select each set of facts below that could change the outcome of the case.

Check All That Apply

• The plaintiff did not sign a contract saying they would assume the risk. But the court found the defendant’s argument that there was an implied assumption of the risk just as persuasive as an expression of the risk argument.

• Rather than getting injured from a fall, James was injured in Rocky’s company van that was driving to the rock climbing site. Rocky’s driver had been speeding and had veered off the road a bit, causing the car to stop abruptly.

• Rather than providing a written contract that expressed risks of rock climbing, Rocky’s never warned James or Jenny of the risks of rock climbing, despite James and Jenny’s saying that they had no experience in rock climbing.

• Right before James’ rope got wedged between two rocks, James had been swinging himself on his rope, and going to areas on a cliff that the company had advised customers not to go to. The court found that this behavior satisfied a contributory negligence defense.

Answer 1

The plaintiff did not sign a contract saying they would assume the risk. But the court found the defendant’s argument that there was an implied assumption of the risk just as persuasive as an expression of the risk argument.

In this case the plaintiff didn't sign the contract, but express their consent about risk. There is a consent of mind that there is a risk, hence no change in the outcome of the court also as a contract can be expressed orally so it will not change the outcome.

Rather than getting injured from a fall, James was injured in Rocky’s company van that was driving to the rock climbing site. Rocky’s driver had been speeding and had veered off the road a bit, causing the car to stop abruptly.

This will change the outcome of the court because it is a loss which due or arise in negligence of Rocky's driver who was speeding up also there was no expression about this hence no consent given. Court will also observe that this is not the rock climbing expeditions activity which poses a risk.

Rather than providing a written contract that expressed risks of rock climbing, Rocky’s never warned James or Jenny of the risks of rock climbing, despite James and Jenny’s saying that they had no experience in rock climbing.

In the above case Rocky has failed to warn James and Jenny about risk of rock climbing despite James and Jenny’s saying that they had no experience in rock climbing. This doesn't grant rocky implied consent of the James and jenny as they doesn't have prior experience. This message is passed to rocky. Also rocky failed to fulfill his statutory obligation to warn climbers about the risk posed. The outcome will be changed as it will not be taken as implied consent.

Right before James’ rope got wedged between two rocks, James had been swinging himself on his rope, and going to areas on a cliff that the company had advised customers not to go to. The court found that this behavior satisfied a contributory negligence defense.

In this case James's has performed a negligence as company has advised not to go to the areas of cliff. Also as James' has signed and given consent that he understand the risk of life in rock climbing the outcome of the case will not changed and rocky will free on above ground.