I believe the reasoning behind the unanimous decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada was completely appropriate. To make the appellant withstand a second trial on the issue of damages is absolutely necessary. They received new evidence of life expectancy, which was not known during the trial. The fact that the appellant now has is life cut short because of the defendantâ€™s negligence is a very valid reason for a separate trial on the issue of assessing the damages thoroughly. The reason why the defendant was found 75% liable was their neglect for their duty of care. They had several opportunities to prevent this accident that was clearly foreseeable. Sundance did have a duty of care. They put on a dangerous event to draw people to its resort and enhance its profits. It allowed, and definitely aided, Crocker, a visibly intoxicated person to participate in the event. In so doing it breached the duty of care it owed him. Sundance had an ethical obligation to stop all drunken individuals from entering the event. They ignored that obligation and responsibility. This was the establishment of the factual basis for the finding of liability on the defendant during the conclusion of the first trial. The defendantâ€™s voluntary assumption of risk defense did not prevail because the defense is based on the moral supposition that no wrong is done to one who consents. By agreeing to assume the risk the plaintiff absolves the defendant of all responsibility. Crocker did not fully appreciate the assumption because he was drunk, thus making the any assumption basically invalid. The choice to take the risk must be an informed and competent one. Crockerâ€™s mind was clouded by alcohol making it impossible for him to make a competent decision off appreciation for the risk involved. Careful consideration is vital as well as essential for voluntarily assuming the risk. This issue was clearly discussed under voluntary assumption of risk in the case.