Karroll v. Silver Star Mountain Resorts Ltd., [1988] BC SC
Facts: P struck another skier while racing on a course. P then sued however she had signed a release of liability form. Pg 502 Resort at Silver Star Mountain. Signed same waiver every year for 5 years.
Issue: Can P sue successfully? Is D indemnified by the release of liability form?
Holding: NO plaintiff cannot sue successfully because she is bound this is a straight forward contract and there is no evidence of her misunderstanding.
Reasons: The duty to do what is reasonable to raise awareness of terms is only for odd terms (Interfoto). Thus she is bound after signing the contract because nothing unusual or onerous about the terms nor is there evidence P was unaware of such terms after signing.
Rule: Reasonable steps given to provide notice of exclusion of liability clauses only in situations where the clause is odd or unusual, depends on the context and the factors mentioned in Tilden. Otherwise you sign you are bound.
In Karroll, the court found that the duty to take reasonable steps is of limited applicability, required only in “special circumstances”. The court acknowledged the general principle of contract law that where a party signs a document which he knows affects his legal rights, the party is bound by the document even though the party may not have read or understood the document. [Relevant factors to consider in determining whether there was a duty to take reasonable steps to advise of an exclusion or waiver include: the effect of the clause in relation to the nature of the contract; the length and format of the contract; and the time available for reading and understanding it.]
The court in Karroll set out a non-exhaustive list of factors that are indicative of “special circumstances” that give rise to a duty to take reasonable steps. Where those factors do not exist, there is no duty on the ski resort to take reasonable steps to bring the waiver to the plaintiff’s attention and the plaintiff is deemed to have understood the terms of the waiver.
In Karroll, the plaintiff signed a release as part of a ski race knowing that it was a legal document affecting her rights. The signing of a release was found to be a common feature of ski races and it was also found that the plaintiff had signed similar releases on prior occasions.
In reaching its decision the court ultimately held that it was irrelevant whether the plaintiff had read or understood the release prior to signing it, where the plaintiff had signed a similar release on previous occasions. The court also held that it was not incumbent on the ski resort to bring the contents of the release to the plaintiff’s attention or ensure that they fully read it.
Contracts
Share with your friends: |
