Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - 2 dead & 6 injured as teens take after hours sled ride down Winsport bobsleigh track

Kjesse · 03-10-2016, 03:57 PM

Some reading since I've been asked:

[14] The Contributory Negligence Act ch. C-27, R.S.A. 2000, s. allows the apportionment of liability and the determination of the degree of fault by the court. Pursuant to this legislation, one uninsured tortfeasor, for example, could be found 85% liable for the accident, with the other insured tortfeasor found to be 15% liable. Subsection 2(2) provides that when two or more persons are found at fault, they are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff, but as between themselves, in the absence of a contract express or implied, they are liable to make contribution to and indemnify each other in the degree in which they are respectively found to have been at fault.

[15] The Tortfeasors Act, ch. T-5, R.S.A. 2000, provides that a plaintiff can seek payment of the entire amount outstanding from any party found liable. Therefore, pursuant to this legislation, a successful plaintiff could seek payment of all of his or her damages from the insured tortfeasor who was found only 15% liable. There is no provision in this legislation that alters its applicability to uninsured or unidentified tortfeasors. The legislation is silent.

ALSO, there are indemnification provisions. In short, COP isn't getting tagged for the whole of this even if they're at least 1% liable.

And Vlad, I pointed out you said "standard" not "duty" because I think technically you are right about saying the act doesn't change the standard applicable... but it does restrict whether a duty is claimed.

03-10-2016, 03:57 PM	#564
Kjesse Retired Join Date: Oct 2003 Exp:	Some reading since I've been asked: [14] The Contributory Negligence Act ch. C-27, R.S.A. 2000, s. allows the apportionment of liability and the determination of the degree of fault by the court. Pursuant to this legislation, one uninsured tortfeasor, for example, could be found 85% liable for the accident, with the other insured tortfeasor found to be 15% liable. Subsection 2(2) provides that when two or more persons are found at fault, they are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff, but as between themselves, in the absence of a contract express or implied, they are liable to make contribution to and indemnify each other in the degree in which they are respectively found to have been at fault. [15] The Tortfeasors Act, ch. T-5, R.S.A. 2000, provides that a plaintiff can seek payment of the entire amount outstanding from any party found liable. Therefore, pursuant to this legislation, a successful plaintiff could seek payment of all of his or her damages from the insured tortfeasor who was found only 15% liable. There is no provision in this legislation that alters its applicability to uninsured or unidentified tortfeasors. The legislation is silent. ALSO, there are indemnification provisions. In short, COP isn't getting tagged for the whole of this even if they're at least 1% liable. And Vlad, I pointed out you said "standard" not "duty" because I think technically you are right about saying the act doesn't change the standard applicable... but it does restrict whether a duty is claimed.