Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Attorney’s Closing Statement on the Case
The case in front of this jury is a perfect illustration of the extent of negligence by a company whose employees who misled an innocent person into risking his life and that of others. According to the legal principles of the laws of the land, the employer is liable for the negligent actions of the employees. This makes Bethlehem Ice Solutions, the defendant in the case liable for the injuries suffered by my client as a result of the misleading direction given by its employees. It is inappropriate for the defendant to escape the results of the negligent guidance provided by the defendant to Craig. This statement will prove that the employees breached their duty of care to advise the skiers, which caused injuries to my client.
Duty of Care
The employees of the defendant had a duty of care to give a prudent and reasonable guide to Craig, just like any other skier. What makes the situation even more critical is the fact that Craig is a moderate skier, who is not expert enough to make judgments about which slope to ski from. According to Harlow (2005), a person under a responsibility should take action when he or she is fully informed of the circumstances and the expected results. Therefore, there was a duty to question Craig’s ability to take the Willie’s Wander, which is a slope for the expert skiers. The employees had a duty of care to advise Craig on the correct slope to take. This duty is not just for the moderate skiers like Craig, but all other skiers, because it is the responsibility that comes with their jobs.
The defendant’s view that his employees had no duty of care to the skiers is misguided and insincere because of the primary role of a skiing company. As a skiing company, Bethlehem Ice Solutions should ensure the safety of the sport by providing accurate information to all skiers who come to the company for guidance. This role is executed by the employees, who had a further duty of care to ensure that safety is upheld in the sporting area they control (Marcia, 2003). The failure of employees, therefore, is the failure of the company, which opens its breach of duty.
Breach of Duty of Care
There was a clear breach of duty by employees when they gave Craig directions about the skiing slope. By directing a moderate person into a skiing slope that was meant for experts, the employees breached their duty of care. The employees knew very well that Willie’s Wander is a slope for the expert skiers, and requires a great level of expertise and experience. At the same time, employees were not sure of the skiing abilities of Craig, and the sufficiency of his expertise to take the Willie’s Wander slope. Moreover, the employee did not warn Craig of the dangers of taking the Willie’s Wander, without the right expertise in skiing for such slopes. Therefore, in giving Craig the wrong direction, the employees breached their duty of care to Craig and indeed to any other skier.
The employees also breached their duty of care by not foreseeing the inability of Craig to take an expert-level skiing slope. The staff, Dan and Abby understand the danger of skiing and the consequences of a non-expert skier taking an expert-level skiing slope like the Willie’s Wander. Informed of this responsibility, and need for safety, the employees ought to have prevented the occurrence of the accident. The staff should have ensured that all the people who ski on the slopes are expert and informed enough to ensure safety. In this case, the employees were clearly negligent of that responsibility and sent Craig to the Willie’s Wander slope without understanding his abilities. This breach of duty did not only endanger the life of Craig, but also the life of other skiers, notably, Alex my client.
Causation Discussion
The negligent decision by Dan and Abby led to the causation of the accident and injury to my client. The direction by the staff of the defendant to send Craig to Willie’s Wander led to the accident because of Craig’s inability to continue with skiing in the expert-level slope. The decision by Craig to walk towards the parking lot was as a result of his uninformed inability to ski in the Willie’s Wander. This was foreseeable, yet the staff went ahead to direct Craig to Willie’s Wander and did not warn him of any consequences. In addition, Craig admitted his negligence, which was as a result of negligent information given by the staff.
The defendant’s argument that the accident was not foreseeable is insincere and incorrect. This is because skiing is a dangerous sport, whose risk of accidents is higher when a skier is not expert enough for an expert-level ski slope like the Willie’s Wander. In this case, the employees should have foreseen the accident, especially because they had not understood the expertise of Craig. It should be clearly noted that if the employees had not sent Craig into the Willie’s Wander slope, the accident with my client could not have happened. Therefore, the defendant and the employees, Dan and Abby are clearly liable for the accident and the injuries that happened due to their negligence.
References
Harlow, C. (2005). Understanding Tort Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell
Marcia, K.A. (2003). Fundamentals of Sports Injury Management. New York:Lippincott Williams & Wilkins