Hyperlawhypertext legal database Vancouver-Fraser Park District v. Olmstead [1975] 2 SCR 831

← Cases

Vancouver-Fraser Park District v. Olmstead

[1975] 2 SCR 831 Court SCC Decision date 1974-10-23 English

PartiesVancouver-Fraser Park District (Defendant) Appellant·Garth Vayne Olmstead (Plaintiff) Respondent

Counsel (4)
H.T. Wheeldon and W.M. Holburn, for the defendant, appellant.
R.S. Ross and G.M. Green, for the plaintiff, respondent.
Solicitors for the defendant, appellant: Alexander, Guest, Wolfe, Holburn & Beaudin, Vancouver.
Solicitor for the plaintiff, respondent: Robert Duncan Ross, Vancouver.

Judges Martland, Ronald; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; de Grandpré, Louis-Philippe

Delivered by Judgment of the Court

On appeal from British Columbia

Subjects Appeal

Contents

Judgment of the Court

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

Was there any negligence on the part of the Defendant which caused or contributed to the occurrence?
A. Yes

A. Yes

If the answer to question No. 1 is “yes”, then state fully of what the negligence of the Defendant consisted.
A. The facility is neither a lake or a pool but rather something in between and has some features in common to both.
It is reasonable that users might assume it is a pool or a lake. Having made this assumption, users would then have their own idea as to the shape of the facility under the water.

[Page 834]

The appearance is sufficiently confusing that the owner should have recognized the need to clarify to any user the exact nature of the facility.
—shoreline
—floats at each end
—sign in middle of float doesn’t indicate its area of application
—water unclear.
If the answer to question No. 1 is “yes”, then was there any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, Garth Olmstead, which caused or contributed to the occurrence?
A. Yes

A. Yes

If the answer to question No. 3 is “yes”, then state fully of what the negligence of the Plaintiff, Garth Olmstead, consisted.
A. The Plaintiff was negligent because he did not observe the basic rules of safe swimming such as:
a) Unknown waters
b) Dark
c) Running dive
d) had been drinking

A. The Plaintiff was negligent because he did not observe the basic rules of safe swimming such as: a) Unknown waters b) Dark c) Running dive d) had been drinking

If the answer to question No. 1 is “yes”, and the answer to question No. 3 is “yes”, state in percentages the degree of fault or negligence attributable to each.

Footnotes

  1. [1] (1886), 11 App. Cas. 152.
  2. [2] (1894), 23 S.C.R. 164.
  3. [3] (1905), 35 S.C.R. 625.
  4. [4] (1919), 59 S.C.R. 471.
  5. [5] [1937] S.C.R. 341.
  6. [6] [1945] S.C.R. 614.