Rafting Company vs. Plaintiff

CASE STUDY 4: Rafting Company (defendant) vs. Hillary (plaintiff)

Hillary and her husband Hal responded to an advertisement that included an all-inclusive overnight hotel stay, meals and a 10km swift river rafting for $300.00. After a brief discussion with the tour operator they entered into a verbal agreement and showed up at the designated hotel the night before and spoke with the president of Rafting Company before paying in full. At no time during their meeting with the president did he mention that they would not have to sign a waiver/release form nor was it mentioned in their advertisement. Hillary, Hal and the other nine passengers assembled at the designated spot were informed by the company representative that all passengers had to sign the Standard Release form stating that they (Rafting Company) were not responsible for any loss, damages suffered by passengers for whatever reason including negligence on the part to Rafting Company it’s employees or agents. It is not known if Rafting Company representative was responsible for downplaying the possibility of danger and discuss the implications of river conditions on that fateful day and if the guide was sufficiently trained to protect the inexperienced riders. Were the passengers shown any maps or aerial photos indicating at which point to expect high flows; were safety precautions prior to riding the raft given to all passengers. The passengers lacked experience and were dependent on the guide to help [i]them navigate through the dangerous rapids safely. None of the raft passengers were fitted properly for life vests and were handed the standard adult buoyancy rating (no special consideration was given to heavier built passengers) also there’s not mention of proper head gear in order to prevent head injuries that might be sustained.

When Hillary and Hal met with both the tour operator and the president of the company at no point did either one inform them that they would have to sign a waiver...