Student Handout 3.1 - The Difference Between Civil Law and ...

Student Handout 3.6 - Poirier v. Murphy Gase Study
The Facts
Peter Poirier and John Murphy, both 18 years of age, agreed to carry out a "stunt." The stunt was performed in
an underground parking garage. Peter stood underneath a water sprinkler pipe. After Peter nodded, John began
driving his car from about 100 feet away and, at the last moment, Peter would jump up, grab the pipe, do a chinup,
swerve his hips and legs to one side and clear the car. Drinking was not involved. The stunt was performed
as a form of amusement for Peter and John, and a group of their friends who were in the car with them.
The stunt was performed safely a first time, but the second time Peter was not prepared for it. Peter was hit by
the car and injured. He became unconscious, suffered a brain injury, and underwent lasting personality and
emotional changes.
Questions to Consider
1. Did Peter knowingly assume the risk of harm when he agreed to carry out the stunt?
2. Was John negligent? Did he fail to take proper care to avoid harm to Peter?
3. Did Peter contribute to his own injuries by not taking reasonable care of himself?
4. How would you decide the case and why?
The Judge's Decision
The judge held that Peter had given up his right to sue for negligence the first time the stunt was performed,
because he willingly assumed the risk of harm. The second performance of the stunt was different because Peter
was not ready to perform the stunt. Peter did not assume a risk until he nodded his approval, and he did not do
so for the second run.
Both Peter and John were negligent. John was negligent because he owed a duty as the driver of the car to take
care. He should have realized that Peter was not ready for the second stunt. John was 2/3 at fault.
Peter was also partly responsible for his own injuries. He was negligent in agreeing to do the stunt and in not
removing himself from the risk of harm before the second stunt. Peter was 'l13 at fault.
(Source: Public Legal Education Association of Saskatchewan. Reprinted with permission.)
160