Vera Spencer, a divorced mother of one, lived in a house she owned in suburban Mississauga, Ontario. Her daughter Karen was sixteen years old at the time of the events in question. Vera had an in-ground pool built in her backyard to a depth of four feet, as she was very safety conscious and did not want a deep pool. Karen persuaded her mother to install a slide alongside the pool. Karen was familiar with using waterslides at places such as Canada's Wonderland, where the slides are high, and the pools are deep. Vera was somewhat dubious about whether it was safe to install such a slide beside a four-foot pool. She first phoned the Mississauga building department to find out whether such slides were allowed. She was told that there was no rule against installing a water slide beside a pool of that depth.

Vera found a used slide on Craigslist and purchased it. It was seven feet high and manufactured by Jacuzzi. The warning label on the side said:

Enter water feet first.

One person only on the slide at a time.

Never stand going down the slide.

Vera wanted further reassurance that the slide would be safe, so she went to Pioneer Pools, her local pool store where she knew the staff and had bought pool chemicals in the past. She asked if there would be any problem in using the slide with her four-foot pool and had a staff member come out to her car and look at the slide. The staff member was familiar with the US Consumer Product Safety Standards, which are used in Canada. They specify that for a seven-foot-high slide, the minimum depth of pool is four feet, and that signs on the slide should warn of the possibility of serious bodily harm if users descend on the slide in other than a "feet first" position. The staff member noted the label on the slide, pointed it out to Vera, and advised her that using the slide would be "no problem" if her pool were at least four feet deep.

Before Karen or her friends were permitted to use the slide, Vera instructed them on the rules for its use. Her rules included: no pushing; no running; one person had to be down the slide before the next one started up the ladder; no one underneath the slide when one person was going down; and descending the slide only "feet first." The slide was only to be used when she was present.

A few days later Karen and her friends were using the pool while Vera was in the yard. Karen went down feet first the first time, without incident. The second time, her mother did not see

what Karen was doing because she was turned towards a neighbour with whom she was chatting. This time Karen squatted on the slide as she went down, with her hands around her knees; as she exited the slide she was pitched forward by her momentum and hit her chin on the bottom of the pool. She broke her neck and was rendered a quadriplegic.

Damages have been agreed, and you need not discuss them. Assume Vera will act as Karen's litigation guardian while she is under age. Advise Karen as to any possible cause of action she has against any party, and her likelihood of success in such action(s). Make sure you consider any possible defences that may be raised by any party that may become a potential defendant in this action. (50 MARKS)

One of Karen's friends Anna was not initially invited to the pool party at Vera and Karen's home. However, when she found out about the party while other of Karen's friends were posting stories on Instagram, she decided to show up at Karen's house. Feeling bad and somewhat obligated because they were all friends, Karen let Anna join the party. Vera had no knowledge of this and in the midst of Karen and her friends having fun, Vera lost count of the number of people she had allowed Karen to invite and confirmed upon their arrival. After Karen's injury, Anna also injured herself. She watched Karen go down the slide and before she was able to see Karen get injured, Anna also went down the slide in the same manner as Karen and broke her right wrist and sustained a head injury, resulting in what was deemed a traumatic brain injury. Anna had received a scholarship to The Juilliard School and was to start school one year early because she was an amazing piano player. Jim had been working three jobs for years in order to be able to afford Anna's attendance at The Royal Conservatory of Music to ensure she had proper training in preparation for and with hopes that Anna would graduate from Julliard and be able to take care of Jim and his spouse, Mary.

Assume Anna's father, Jim, is acting as litigation guardian for Anna as she too was a minor at the time of the incident. Advise Anna, Jim and Mary as to any possible cause of action they may have against any party, in so far as it may be any different than the above scenario, and their likelihood of success in such action(s). Again, make sure you consider any possible defences that may be raised by any party that may become a potential defendant in this action. (30 MARKS)

With respect to damages, advise Anna, Jim and Mary of damages, if any, they may be entitled to. In answering this part of the question, you do not need to discuss any specific numbers or formulas to arrive at a final figure. (20 Marks

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Karens Case Possible Cause of Action 1 Negligence against Vera Karen may have a cause of action against her mother Vera for negligence Despite Veras e... View the full answer