How have courts dealt with the argument that negligence or lack of care on the part of a visitor relieves the occupier of his duty to make the premises reasonably safe?

In Preston v. Can. Legion, Moir J.A. also dealt with the argument that negligence or lack of care on the part of the visitor relieves the occupier of his duty to take reasonable care. At p. 537 Moir J.A. stated as follows: It was further argued that the appellant was contributorily negligent or accepted the risk in using the lot. Section 7 of the Act provides the occupier is not liable in respect of risks willingly accepted by the visitor. If the Act is interpreted to mean that any person coming on the premises and finding dangerous, icy conditions is deemed to accept the risk, the Act is effectively repealed. In my opinion, the duty to make the premises reasonably safe is placed upon the occupier. Merely because a visitor, upon arrival at the premises, sees that there is a risk in using the premises cannot in my opinion relieve the occupier of the duty placed upon him by the statute. Section 7 codifies the law relating to voluntary assumption of risk, the test for which is not met in this case.