This little story is much like the case we have before us today. The injury suffered by the Plaintiff is being attributed to an advice given by employees of the Defendant, although there in fact exists no logical connection between the two. The defendant, Bethlehem Ice Solutions, is a popular ski resort for a number of reasons – it has good ski slopes the avid skier enjoys, it has comfortable and well appointed facilities for its guests, and it has a good safety track record. Had it been otherwise, lovers of skiing would not have flocked to this place such as the April morning when the incident occurred.
Let us summarize the facts so far established. On that morning, a guest at the resort by the name of Craig approached Bethlehem’s staff Dan and Abby and asked about “a slope that is open and suitable for the moderately skilled skier.” Dan and Abby pointed him to Willie’s Wander which was acknowledged by all as a “relatively easy run.” When he took that slope, Craig felt that he could not after all take it, and decided to walk down. Not only did he decide to walk down, but he also decided to “cut across to a neighboring slope” that he adjudged to be closer to the parking lot. It is in this slope that Craig encountered Alex, the plaintiff in this case, on the way down, which resulted in injury to Alex. These are the facts as they stand in the present case.
Now, Alex has brought action against Bethlehem because he believes Bethlehem is responsible for his accident. In short, Alex says Bethlehem caused his injury, by sending Craig down the Willie’s Wander run. Specifically, Alex says Bethlehem was negligent in giving Craig the wrong advice that sent him down the slope on which he collided with Alex and therefore caused his injuries.
But wait, am I getting this right? Was Alex on Willie’s Wander when he and Craig accidentally collided? The facts say NO, they collided on another, nearby run, the more dangerous run where