J. Douglas Wright

The appellant appealed a decision of the motion judge granting summary judgment in favour of the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by the motion judge, finding no error in the granting of summary judgment.

Costs of the appeal were fixed at $5,000.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their action for damages for personal injuries sustained on an amusement park ride.

At trial, the judge refused to instruct the jury that the respondent was a common carrier subject to a higher standard of care and a reverse onus, instead charging them on ordinary negligence and occupiers' liability.

The jury found no liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that an amusement park ride does not fall within the definition of a common carrier and the policy rationale for the higher standard of care does not apply.

The appellants appealed a costs order, arguing that their Rule 49 offer should have attracted cost consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion.

The trial judge correctly held that the offer lacked clarity, particularly regarding multiple claimants and the absence of reference to the Family Law Act claimant.

The Court affirmed the policy that Rule 49 offers must be crystal clear to be effective.