Civil Law

Statutes

Negligence Act, RSBC 1996, c 333, https://canlii.ca/t/53j4q

Determines how damages are divided among multiple wrongdoers, with each party’s degree of fault influencing the amount of damages awarded. Provides a partial defense of contributory negligence, meaning if a claimant’s own actions contributed to the injury, their damages may be reduced.

For further information on the Negligence Act and suggested reforms, see “Report on Contribution after Settlement under the Negligence Act,” British Columbia Law Institute, 2013-12-17

Occupiers Liability Act, RSBC 1996, c 337, https://canlii.ca/t/51vbv

Outlines the duties of property owners and occupiers to ensure premises are reasonably safe for visitors, requiring them to take reasonable steps to prevent harm or injury.

Case Law

Finding Aids

Canadian Abridgment Digests

The Canadian Abridgment Digests helps legal professionals and researchers locate case law by legal topic and determine how those cases have been treated by other courts. Access through LawSource.

TOR.XV.8.e.ii Voluntary acceptance of risk

  • TOR.XV Negligence
    • TOR.XV.8 Defences
      • TOR.XV.8.e Volenti non fit injuria
        • TOR.XV.8.e.ii Voluntary acceptance of risk

TOR.XIX.2.c.iii Sporting facilities

  • TOR.XIX Specific forms of liability
    • TOR.XIX.2 Occupiers’ liability
      • TOR.XIX.2.c Particular situations
        • TOR.XIX.2.c.iii Sporting facilities

Key Cases

Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., 1988 CanLII 45 (SCC), [1988] 1 SCR 1186, https://canlii.ca/t/1ftcw

A visibly inebriated man entered an inherently dangerous tube racing competition. He broke his neck, rendering him quadriplegic, and argued that the defendent company had been negligent. The defendent relied on pleas of volenti and contributory negligence. The Ontario High Court of Justice ruled that the defendent had owed a duty to warn the plaintiff, awarding $155,000 in damages with a reduction for contributory negligence. The Ontario Court of Appeal reversed this decision, considering the plaintiff to be solely responsible for his own injury. The Supreme Court of Canada restored the trial judgement and ordered a new trial to determine quantum.

History: Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., 1983 CanLII 1745 (ON SC), https://canlii.ca/t/g1d02; Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., 1985 CanLII 2182 (ON CA), https://canlii.ca/t/g15hw

Dyke v. British Columbia Amateur Softball Assn., 2008 BCCA 3 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/1vccq

Plaintiff was a scorekeeper who suffered a head injury from a foul ball. She brought a claim against the defendant under the Occupiers Liability Act, as she would have been out of harm’s way in the dugout if it hadn’t been flooded. Plaintiff alleged that the defendent did not fulfill it’s duty to provide a safe place for scorekeeping activities. The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that the defendent did not breach standard of care, as the association had erected protective fencing.

Cox v. Miller, 2024 BCCA 3 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/k229k

A slide tackle in a recreational soccer league was deemed dangerous and outside the realm of expected conduct. The tackler was held liable for injuries, and this decision was affirmed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

History: Miller v Cox, 2023 BCSC 349 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jw1v8