Reese v. Coleman and Cowles et al., (1979) 6 Sask.R. 340 (CA)
|Judge:||Brownridge, Hall and Bayda, JJ.A.|
|Court:||Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan|
|Case Date:||March 23, 1979|
|Citations:||(1979), 6 Sask.R. 340 (CA)|
Reese v. Coleman (1979), 6 Sask.R. 340 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Reese v. Coleman et al.
Indexed As: Reese v. Coleman and Cowles et al.
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
Brownridge, Hall and Bayda, JJ.A.
March 23, 1979.
This appeal arose out of a trial judge's finding of breach of duty to protect spectators at a snowmobile race organized by the defendant club members. The plaintiff spectator paid $1.00 to observe the race. The plaintiff stood with approximately 50 other spectators in an area between the snowmobile pit stop and the race track. There were no barriers or warning signs to indicate the area was dangerous. During the race a snowmobile left the track and re-entered, contrary to the rules, through the pit stop and spectators, injuring the plaintiff. The club members appealed the trial judge's decision, not reported in this series of reports, submitting that they were not liable because the accident could not be foreseen.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and apportioned liability 75% to the snowmobile driver and 25% to the club members.
Torts - Topic 3712
Occupier's liability for dangerous premises - Invitees - Recreational and sports arenas or facilities - The defendant club members organized a snowmobile race at which the plaintiff was injured when struck by a snowmobile - The plaintiff was standing with approximately 50 other spectators in an area between the snowmobile pit stop and the race track - There were no barriers or warning signs to protect the spectators who paid $1.00 each to observe the race - A snowmobile left the track and in order to get back on the track as fast as possible went through the pit area and spectators, injuring the plaintiff - One of the race rules forbade re-entry through the pit area in the event that a snowmobile should leave the track - The defendant submitted that the accident could not be foreseen - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that because there was a rule of no re-entry through the pit, the club could foresee the possibility of injury from such an act and the club failed in its duty to erect barriers or signs to warn and protect the spectators - The Court held the club members 25% at fault for the accident.
McAlister (Donoghue v. Stevenson),  A.C. 562, refd to. [para. 10].
Glasgow v. Muir,  A.C. 448, refd to. [para. 10].
Bolton v. Stone,  A.C. 850, refd to. [para. 10].
Swanson v. Henkel Enterprises Ltd. et al.,  3 W.W.R. 179, refd to. [para. 10].
L.J. Billesberger, for the appellants (excepting Coleman and Cowles);
D.E. Gauley, Q.C., for the respondents.
This appeal was heard on November 27, 1978, by BROWNRIDGE, HALL and BAYDA, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.
On March 23, 1979, BROWNRIDGE, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP