J.G. et al. v. Strathcona No. 20 (County) et al., 2004 ABQB 378

• Judge: Binder, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 14, 2004
• Citations: 2004 ABQB 378;(2004), 356 A.R. 140 (QB)

J.G. v. Strathcona (2004), 356 A.R. 140 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. JN.104

J.G., a Dependent Adult by his Guardians and Trustees, A.G. and B.G. and Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Alberta (plaintiffs) v. The County of Strathcona No. 20, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Alberta, Bombardier Inc., Terry Ann Beck, Albert Beck, Kim Beck and Brett Nigro Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of David Paetz (defendants)

(9903 23011; 2004 ABQB 378)

Indexed As: J.G. et al. v. Strathcona No. 20 (County) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Binder, J.

June 14, 2004.

Summary:

The 16 year old plaintiff drove a snowmobile belonging to the Beck family into a retaining wall under a bridge. The plaintiff suffered injuries. His passenger died. The plaintiff had been visiting at the Becks' residence and snowmobiling with their son Kim just prior to the accident. The plaintiff sued the Becks, arguing that they breached a duty of care owed to him.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Torts - Topic 21

Negligence - Standard of care - Child - Respecting - The 16 year old plaintiff drove a snowmobile belonging to the Beck family into a retaining wall under a bridge - The plaintiff suffered injuries - His passenger died - The plaintiff had been visiting at the Becks' residence and snowmobiling with their son Kim just prior to the accident - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Becks owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and that the standard of care was that of a prudent and careful parent aware of the potential dangers and having additional snowmobile experience available sufficient to assess the ability of an individual to operate a snowmobile safely - The court stated that the duty extended to ensuring that: the activity was suitable to the age, mental and physical condition and capabilities of the plaintiff; he was or had been properly instructed or otherwise knew how to operate the snowmobile properly and to avoid the dangers inherent in the activity and he was competent to do so; he was mature enough that one might reasonably assume he would apprehend and obey the rules (keeping in mind adolescent boys' propensity for mischief, excitement, and irresponsible use of motorized vehicles and sometimes lack of good and mature judgment); the equipment was in good mechanical condition; and there was appropriate supervision in relation to the inherent dangers involved - See paragraphs 143 to 154.

Torts - Topic 21

Negligence - Standard of care - Child - Respecting - The 16 year old plaintiff drove a snowmobile belonging to the Beck family into a retaining wall under a bridge - The plaintiff suffered injuries - His passenger died - The plaintiff had been visiting at the Becks' residence and snowmobiling with their son Kim just prior to the accident - The plaintiff had snowmobiled at the Becks' residence six to 10 times before and had driven under the bridge 12 to 20 times - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the duty of care owed by Mr. Beck to the plaintiff required that Mr. Beck personally observe the plaintiff and arrive at his own conclusion as to the plaintiff's ability to safely operate a snowmobile - Mr. Beck had substantially delegated that task to Kim, whom he had asked to evaluate the plaintiff's driving ability and to supervise the plaintiff - However, the court was satisfied that delegating supervision to Kim was not unreasonable and that if Mr. Beck had personally evaluated the plaintiff, his conclusion would have been no different than Kim's, namely that the plaintiff was capable of operating a snowmobile safely -Accordingly, the court was not satisfied that Mr. Beck's failure to make his own personal assessment materially contributed to the accident, or that the failure to do so was a proximate cause of the accident - Further, by the time of the accident, Mr. Beck was aware of sufficient evidence of safe and successful operation by the plaintiff to alleviate any need for him to assess the plaintiff's ability to travel the route where the accident occurred - See paragraphs 177 to 178.

Torts - Topic 21

Negligence - Standard of care - Child - Respecting - The 16 year old plaintiff drove a snowmobile belonging to the Beck family into a retaining wall under a bridge - The plaintiff suffered injuries - His passenger died - The plaintiff had been visiting at the Becks' residence and snowmobiling with their son Kim just prior to the accident - The plaintiff had snowmobiled at the Becks' residence six to 10 times before and had driven under the bridge 12 to 20 times - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that Mr. Beck's delegation of supervision of the plaintiff to Kim was not unreasonable - The court also held that Kim's failure to require the plaintiff to closely follow him back to the bridge did not constitute a breach of the duty of supervision or materially contribute to the accident - Nor was it a proximate cause of the accident - See paragraphs 177 to 184.

Torts - Topic 61

Negligence - Causation - Causal connection - [See second and third Torts - Topic 21 ].

Torts - Topic 89

Negligence - Duty of care - To children - [See all Torts - Topic 21 ].

Torts - Topic 6742

Defences - Consent - Assumption of risk - Evidence and proof - The 16 year old plaintiff drove a snowmobile belonging to the Beck family into a retaining wall under a bridge - The plaintiff suffered injuries - His passenger died - The plaintiff had been visiting at the Becks' residence and snowmobiling with their son Kim just prior to the accident - The plaintiff sued the Becks - The Becks argued that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risks associated with snowmobiling - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that there could be no attribution of voluntary assumption of risk to the plaintiff - The defence of volenti required that the plaintiff have knowledge of the risk of injury and have waived his legal rights to make a claim arising from any loss - There was no evidence that the plaintiff agreed, expressly or impliedly, to waive any claim for any injury that might befall him due to the lack of reasonable care by the Becks - See paragraph 185.

Torts - Topic 8906

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Control of conduct of others - Care of children - [See all Torts - Topic 21 ].

Cases Noticed:

School District of Assiniboine South No. 3 v. Hoffer, [1971] 1 W.W.R. 1 (Man. Q.B.), affd. [1971] 4 W.W.R. 746 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1186; 86 N.R. 241; 29 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 117].

Eichmanis v. Prystay et al. (2004), 185 O.A.C. 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

Matheson v. Coughlin et al. (1989), 78 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 91; 244 A.P.R. 91; 20 M.V.R.(2d) 102 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 117].

MacCabe v. Board of Education of Westlock (Roman Catholic Separate) School District (1998), 226 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), varied (2001), 293 A.R. 41; 257 W.A.C. 41 (C.A.), consd. [para. 117].

Myers and Myers v. Peel County Board of Education and Jowett, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 21; 37 N.R. 227, refd to. [para. 117].

Rochefort v. Duval et al. (1998), 222 A.R. 312 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 117].

Smith v. Horizon Aero Sports Ltd. et al. (1981), 19 C.C.L.T. 89 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 117].

Lemieux v. Porcupine Snowmobile Club of Timmins Inc. (1999), 120 O.A.C. 292 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 118].

Pope v. RGC Management Inc. et al. (2002), 325 A.R. 124; 2002 ABQB 823, refd to. [para. 118].

Ryan et al. v. Hickson et al. (1974), 7 O.R.(2d) 352 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 118].

Swartz Brothers Ltd. v. Wills, [1935] S.C.R. 628, refd to. [para. 118].

Trevison v. Springman (1995), 16 B.C.L.R.(3d) 138 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 118].

Lafleur v. Maryniuk (1990), 26 M.V.R.(2d) 268 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 118].

Stynes v. Victoria (City) (1990), 43 B.C.L.R.(2d) 118 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 118].

Ferguson Estate v. MacLeod (2000), 187 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 54; 566 A.P.R. 54; 49 M.V.R.(3d) 135; 2000 PESCTD 9, refd to. [para. 118].

Dolby v. McWhirter (1979), 99 D.L.R.(3d) 727 (Ont. H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 118].

Parrill v. Genge (1997), 148 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 91; 464 A.P.R. 91 (Nfld. C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1997), 224 N.R. 237; 165 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 149; 509 A.P.R. 149 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 118].

Mont v. Reid (1988), 83 N.S.R.(2d) 407; 210 A.P.R. 407 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 118].

Bartosek et al. v. Turret Realties Inc. et al., [2001] O.T.C. 856 (Sup. Ct.), affd. (2004), 185 O.A.C. 90 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 118].

Wickberg v. Patterson (1997), 196 A.R. 43; 141 W.A.C. 43; 145 D.L.R.(4th) 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 119].

Thornton v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 57 (Prince George) et al. (1976), 73 D.L.R.(3d) 35 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 119].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law (3rd Ed. 2003), generally [para. 117].

Counsel:

Donna L. Oliver (Ahlstrom, Wright, Oliver & Cooper), for the plaintiffs;

Chris D. Fix (Chris Fix Professional Corp.), for the defendants.

This action was heard from May 10-19, 2004, before Binder, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on June 14, 2004.