ENGR 498 V00783910
Assignment 2
Part 1:
1. Explain the legal function of the lift ticket and the relevant implied condition. [2]
The legal function of the lift ticket is to indicate that an individual has the right to ride the
gondola within the specifications of the ticket. It serves as an agreement between the gondola
operator (i.e. Intrawest Mountain Resorts Ltd.) and the individual rider. The relevant implied
condition is that the gondola operator will ensure safe transportation of the rider while using
their facilities (as long as all rules are followed).
2. Based on the answer above, explain using IRAC: [4]
a. The legal issue.
The legal issue is whether or not negligence on the part of the gondola operator, Intrawest
Mountain Resorts Ltd. (Intrawest), or the lift system manufacturer, Doppelmayr CTEC Ltd
(Doppelmayr), led to the situation in which riders were injured.
b. The legal rule that applies.
A negligence claim can be made if 4 requirements are met. The 4 elements of a negligence
claim are:
i. A duty of care (DOC) exists between the plaintiff and defendant.
ii. There was a breach of the DOC.
iii. The damage or loss is caused by the breach of the DOC.
iv. The breach of the DOC is the proximate cause of the damage or loss.
c. How to apply the rule to the facts.
The requirements of a negligence claim apply to the facts as follows:
i. A DOC was owed to the gondola riders by Intrawest and Doppelmayr as the
companies operated and designed the gondola for the purpose of transporting
riders, respectively.
ii. It is questionable if the DOC was breached by Intrawest or Doppelmayr not meeting
the standard of care (SOC) for the gondola riders. Intrawest was responsible for
operating the gondola safely, and Doppelmayr was responsible for supplying a
structure that could adequately support the gondola. The question at hand is
whether Intrawest operators or Doppelmayr engineers could have prevented the
incident through reasonable skill, care, or diligence.
iii. Riders were injured and personal property of riders may have been damaged.
iv. The injuries sustained by the riders were due to the gondola support structure
failing.
d. Your logical legal conclusion, as they apply to the situation.
ENGR 498 V00783910
More information is required to determine the legal conclusion; namely, if it was safe for
Intrawest to operate the gondola under the specified conditions and if Doppelmayr’s
support structure should not have been affected by ‘ice jacking,’ which eventually led to the
support structure’s failure. Without knowledge of gondola operation or gondola support
structure design, I would conclude that it was unreasonable for Intrawest to foresee failure
of a support structure through normal operation; however, it was likely reasonable for
Doppelmayr to foresee ‘ice jacking’ to occur in their support structure. Doppelmayr should
have had a design that was not susceptible to ‘ice jacking’ or had an inspection process
(perhaps conducted by a third party) in place to identify and prevent ‘ice jacking’ from
affecting their structure. This assumes that ‘ice jacking’ was a known phenomenon at the
time.
3. Explain the purpose of the tort law, whether or not Intrawest is liable to you in negligence, and
why/why not. [3]
The purpose of tort law is to compensate a victim where an established duty of care is breached,
which causes injury or loss to the victim. This is independent of whether the two parties
involved have a contract for which the law provides remedy. Under the assumption that it was
not reasonable for Intrawest to foresee that the gondola support structure would fail under the
specified conditions, Intrawest is not liable in negligence. It is assumed Intrawest upheld the
DOC by taking reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could have caused the unsafe
situation in the gondola.
4. What type of negligence claim you could make against Doppelmayr CTEC Ltd. and why? [2]
A professional negligence claim could be made against Doppelmayr because it was reasonable
for professional Doppelmayr engineers to foresee that their gondola support structure could be
susceptible to ‘ice jacking’ and fail without proper attention. It was reasonably foreseeable
because ‘ice jacking’ is a natural process which often leads to structural failure. Doppelmayr
should have specified and supplied an inspection process along with their design to ensure ‘ice
jacking’ did not lead to structural failure of their product. This could also be a case of product
liability. Knowing the conditions that the gondola support structure would operate under, it was
the duty of Doppelmayr to warn about the dangers of ‘ice jacking.’ This brings into question if
Intrawest was a “learned intermediary” about the dangers of ‘ice jacking.’ If Doppelmayr had
warned Intrawest (or a different party) of possible dangers and agreed upon adequate
inspection processes, then Doppelmayr may not be liable for the support structure failing due to
‘ice jacking.’
5. Explain how the following concepts would apply to your answer in Q4 above: neighbor principle,
reasonable professional, reasonable foreseeability, SOC, and vicarious liability (i.e. Make the
case for their liability to you on that legal basis.) [5]
As a paying gondola rider, Doppelmayr ought to have had me in contemplation as being affected
by their gondola support structure design and fabrication. It is expected that a reasonable
ENGR 498 V00783910
engineering professional would have considered the possibility of ‘ice jacking’ in their structure
and its associated consequences. It was reasonably foreseeable that the jeopardization of the
support’s structural integrity through ‘ice jacking’ would cause a dangerous situation for me as a
gondola rider. By manufacturing a support structure that was susceptible to the consequences
of ‘ice jacking,’ or by not having a process in place to identify signs of ‘ice jacking,’ the standard
of care was not met. As Doppelmayr is vicariously liable for the actions or inactions of its
employees, Doppelmayr would be sued for negligence claims instead of the employees involved
in the design and fabrication of the gondola support structure.
Part 2:
6. You’re at a pool party. Someone sees your stylin’ footwear and says “Haha, Fitflop, I get it. Cute,
but it sounds too much like ‘flip-flop.’ How’d they get copyright on that?” Explain it to them,
briefly. [2]
The company would not have received copyright on their name, they would have gotten a
trademark. Copyrights protect eligible literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic “works.”
Trademarks protect marks used to distinguish goods and services, which includes business
names. A trademark may be registered if a company (or individual) has been using it or making it
known. It is required to be distinctive such that it will not be confused with another trademark
in the same industry. While it does sound like “flip-flop,” the name “Fitflop” is different enough
to distinguish it from generic flip-flops and avoid confusion.
7. s