Summary
In the late 1970s, British Columbia Hydro rented property near the Surrey Fraser Docks to the Fraser Sand and Gravel Ltd. to build a quarry. The Fraser river’s bottom was dredged, and vast quantities of sand and water were taken. Upon the drying and settling of the sand, they had huge mounds, some as high as twenty feet, covering up to 10 acres. A motorbike accident happened on this path, and the girl was hurt. Three defendants are testifying in this case, including a Fraser Sand and Gravel employee (the owner’s nephew), two Fraser Sand and Gravel owners, and a motor-cross specialist, all of whom provide background information to help the court decide who is to blame. In the essay, I will explore the complete case, including who is right and wrong according to the law.
Key Arguments
Firstly, I will argue that this was a privately owned piece of land. The employee claimed that signs were posted around the facility, but nobody followed them. Even though gates were blocking the entrances, all motorcyclists went on the land regardless, despite being aware that it was privately owned. Fraser Sand and Gravel Ltd. employees have warned the youths many times to leave the site and B.C. Hydro has even sent security personnel to assist. Considering the several times that the company has previously cautioned the young adult, they cannot be held accountable for the accident (Ceil, 2019). Fraser would have been responsible if they had not taken these measures or done their utmost to stop the teenagers from causing an accident; hence the company cannot be held responsible.
The second point of contention is that motorbikes have been a source of irritation from the beginning. Many individuals living nearby were upset by the fast whines of their engines. Many locals have expressed their displeasure, and as a result, they wrote to B.C. Hydro, the landowner, wrote to Surrey’s mayor, who wrote to the B.C.M.P. superintendent. In addition, the people gathered signatures on a petition that they were horrified by what they saw. The fact that the locals were disturbed means that there was an issue. They even spoke to Fraser about it, and then the corporation did all it could to end it.
Thirdly, I will argue based on the motorbike expert’s comments. He advised that when you approach the summit of a hill, you should ease off the gas because, if you do not, you will not be able to maintain control of the front brake or the front wheel. To make matters worse, the teenager’s stopping time rises, making it even more difficult for them to escape the situation (Posner, 2022). As the expert pointed out, the plaintiff failed to stop at 6-7 feet, indicating that he was not traveling at 10 kilometers per hour, as shown by the skid marks on the flat stretch of the road, which indicate a speed of close to 30 km per hour. Her allegation is incorrect, and she was responsible for it (Posner, 2022). She is accountable for the incident and cannot blame the company for the tragedy.
Legal Precedent
In light of the circumstances, the plaintiff was aware that they were accessing private property without permission. As a matter of law, no one is authorized to enter private property without the owner’s consent. On the other hand, the neighbors have expressed their displeasure at the excessive noise they are causing by riding their bikes extremely fast. People continue to access the slopes despite the company’s warnings (such as “No Trespassing”). Therefore, Fraser sand and gravel Ltd is not responsible for any negligence action since the plaintiff was aware of the signs and had been instructed not to visit the site (A Theory of Negligence on JSTOR, 2022). The company might also be held liable if it failed to post warning signs on the property’s exterior. When all the circumstances are considered, the corporation cannot be held accountable for the girl’s injuries. It is entirely the girl’s fault because she was aware of the risks; she went inside nevertheless, got on her bike, and was hurt.
Investigation of the Witness’s Credibility
The employee is the first witness. During that time, he was the sole individual working at that location. He had seen that it was extremely rare for someone to be riding a bike on the hill. Since there was much disturbance from motorcyclists, the private property sign had been placed out there; nevertheless, the issue was that nobody obeyed it. Therefore, he worked to remove some of the sand from the pile on the day of the incident. As usual, he went about his business and had no notion that it might injure him. He was working at the time of the accident. He noticed how quickly the bike was going and how loud it sounded. Eventually, an accident occurred, and he rushed to aid the victim. Ambulances were summoned, and his parents were informed of the accident.
The other witness is the company’s owner. He argues that individuals are put through many difficulties directly resulting from motorcycles. A “No Trespassing” sign was already in place. But no one heeds its warnings. There were motorcyclists there who took it down. It was communicated to all staff members working there to request that they depart the premises. However, they returned after a short time. Therefore, there was no negligence by Fraser Sand and Gravel Ltd. since the company had no intention of causing the riders any injury.
The subsequent witness is a motor cross specialist who used to instruct people on how to ride motorcycles. He was an expert in his field. It’s clear from his testimony that the plaintiff was speeding at the accident. A motorist traveling at 10 km/h may stop in about 6 feet due to the skid tracks left behind, and because it would equate to around 30 km/h of speed, the person who was driving stopped in about 15-20 feet.
Question for the Employee
Can you attest those signs are reading “Private Property – No Entry” all over the site’s borders and gates blocking the entrance?
Question for the Owner of Fraser Sand and Gravel Ltd
Did you take any steps to prevent the plaintiff from illegally entering your property, notwithstanding the warning sign, “Private Property – No Entry”?
Question for the Motor-Cross Expert
In your opinion, are sandhills safe for an underage dirt rider to ride alone?
It is necessary to consider a variety of factors for a conclusive judgment. When the plaintiff entered the defendant’s property without permission, she was injured and exposed to risk. The dirt riding activities were carried out in a dangerous and unsafe setting. The plaintiff went dirt biking without first determining the safety of the slopes she was riding. She could have prevented the accident if she had paid more attention to the slopes and the piled sand. In addition to his negligence, the plaintiff took unnecessary risks by entering private land without permission. To summarize, the plaintiff’s choice is to blame for all issues. If she had followed the correct protocols from the beginning, she might have escaped the accident.
References
Ceil, C. (2019). The tort of negligence, Caparo test, and alternative dispute resolution. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Posner, R. A. (2022). A Theory of Negligence on JSTOR. Jstor.org.