Brandon Walsh and Hoof Hearted Adventures Ltd. Were two parties of Brandon case. In this case, following principles are applicable-

1. Negligence- in tort, the negligence will not always considered as liability. It is a breach of legal obligation to consider that results in damages not wished by defendant to complainant
2. Voluntary assumption of risk doctrine- this principle states that in case where any person willingly enters in the position in which he or she knows injury may result, then he or she not able to sue defendant.
3. Exculpatory clause- an exculpatory clause is a clause, which completely forgives the party from the future negligence.

1. Essential elements of negligence action in Brandon case

1. Duty of Care: As per tort of negligence, the legal liability of offenders arises at the failure on their role to accomplish as responsibilities, the payee of which is complainant. In this way, complainant has to create that they are available to perform the duty on role of offender towards complainant.
2. Breach of Duty: The other main element that must be established in order to sue is that there was a breach of earlier mentioned duty by the offender. The offender may subjectively expose the plaintiff towards the significant risk of loss or injury. He can also do so by failing to realise the said risk, which any reasonable person in the given circumstances would have objectively realised. In this way, the breach of duty may be either objective or subjective (Kennedy & Sossin, 2017).
3. Causation: The offenders are required to held accountable for the breach of duties. For that reason, it is required to establish that the damages sustained were just because of cause of specific actions or blunders on part of defendant.
4. Damages: To claim the damage from offenders, the complainants are required to prove that breach of duty by defendants caused the losses, or injuries to them.

2. Defences that Hoof Hearted Adventures may have

Hoof Hearted Adventures may have defences. In volenti non fit injuria, in case where the complainant has given his free consent to the wrong actions, without any pressure, with voluntary acceptance of risk, then complainant cannot sue the offender. In this case, Brandon Walsh signed the waiver in hurry without reading and gave to employee of Hoof Hearted Adventures. The signed waiver was like free consent of plaintiff. Brandon Walsh was attentive from the compulsory riding course that employee of Hoof Hearted Adventures was required to check the equipment. Hoof Hearted Adventures was not so liable. In this way, the plaintiff cannot sue the defendant (Mulheron, 2016). 

3. Kinds of damages that Brandon Walsh could claim-

There are three major kinds of monetary damages that complainant can receive as part of solving the civil lawsuit-

1. Compensatory damages- Compensatory damages are normally most recognizable and actual type of damages. It involve the amount for lost income, damage related to property, and remedial care resulting from misbehaviour of offender.
2. General damages– They are required in aggregation of compensatory damages. The general damages are not specific damages. They are not so tangible in comparison of compensatory damages.
3. Punitive damages- Punitive damages are for punishing the offender for mainly egregious behaviour. 

In this case, the defendant was not liable because plaintiff gave his consent through the waiver. The plaintiff cannot claim any type of these damages.

4. Five important witnesses

1. In famous case ofTubemakers of Australia Ltd v Fernandez (1976) 10 ALR 303, it was held by the court the breach of obligation was the direct reason for harm to plaintiff.
2. In case of Vaughan v Menlove(1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467, it was held by court that it should be made that there were losses of anticipatable kind, and only then, defender can be held responsible.
3. The factors of faults have broadly developed under different case laws. In this respect, Donoghue v. Stevenson[1932] AC 562 is famous case.
4. The conditions of duty of care were mainly developed in case of Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman[1990] 2 AC 605.
5. Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928) is milestone case for conversation of contiguous causes and the relationships with obligation.

References

Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605

Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Kennedy, G. J., & Sossin, L. (2017). Justiciability, Access to Justice and the Development of Constitutional Law in Canada. Fed. L. Rev., 45(5), 707.

Mulheron, R. (2016). Principles of tort law. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928)

Tubemakers of Australia Ltd v Fernandez (1976) 10 ALR 303

Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467