2 dead & 6 injured as teens take after hours sled ride down Winsport bobsleigh track

[Slava]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Yeah, but will the insurance cover negligence by COP? They might decline to pay if it is found COP is negligent, or does insurance cover negligence? Not too sure to be honest but I can see it being declined if that's the case.

That is exactly what insurance (liability) covers. So the first hurdle for the Plaintiffs is to prove negligence. If that is cut and dried (say a rear-end traffic collision), then you move along to damages. But yeah, insurance covers negligence. A place like Winsport will have a Commercial General Liability policy that will be fairly customized due to their unique risk exposures, along with the more mundane ones.

[teamchachi]

They didn't miss the chain. There is a reason that it is a closed casket funeral. That would be why the police service has been talking about PTSD counselling for their members that responded. We're not just talking about blunt force trauma.

Originally Posted by Bagor

I'm just realizing now that the barrier is not a barrier per se across the track but one that funnels the track off to a dead end.




I am assuming by some miracle they all missed the chain.

[T@T]

Interesting that this seems to be the only track in the world that uses a switch gate between bobsled and luge,(at least I can't find one) most look similar to the pic below. everything just funnels to the main track and even the lower start-lines just blend onto the main track. Can't find a good pic of Whistler but I'm told there's no gate there either.

This is Lake Placid's start-line. it was built in 1930

[Boxman]

Whoever designed the track layout will be liable. Total failure from an engineering controls perspective. The track layout could have and should have been designed without moving deadly obstacles on the track in the course of everyday operation. You could not have designed the track without realizing an accident was bound to happen sooner or later. Just a shame that it had such devastating consequences.

[Northendzone]

^ perhaps i am missing the point here but as an ordinary guy who is not an expert in the field of liability or bobsliegh/luge track design is this not a real stretch to say the designer is at fault for this accident? where does the blame end? Should the track building crew not also share in the blame? Could Winsport have erected a series of 100 foot or higher fences to keep people out?

Yeah, the track could have had a different layout, it could have been flatter, it could ahve had a big pillow pit at the end to stop this horrible accident for happening - but it did nto becasue it is a bobsled/luge track, meant to be navigated by people with some degree of expertise and proper equipment.

To be honest if winsport is held liable it seems is if we are moving to the American system where it seems like there is always someone to sue because surely it can't be my fault that you left a ladder by your house and i decided to climb up on it.

to me as long as Winsport did a reasonable job of protecting it property then it should not be held liable.

please note my comment is not meant to take away from the impact of this accident on the community or those directly involved.

[Otto-matic]

^ Just to add onto this, I don't think the designer should be liable. IIRC the start line has lights to indicate if the course is safe to ride or not.

Its a terrible situation for those involved.

[polak]

Is there a statute of limitations on designs?

Can you be held liable for designing something like this that has worked without fail for 27 years?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by polak

Is there a statute of limitations on designs?

Can you be held liable for designing something like this that has worked without fail for 27 years?

An engineer has territiary liability to the public for ever for all their designs. They have a duty of care to provide work comparable to the average engineer

Most designs though are give life spans, so if something fails due to lack of maintenance or use beyond its lifespan the engineer is generally not responsible. Or if it is used outside of its design envelope.

[pylon]

Devils advocate here, this is a horrible tragedy and all, but are we really at a point where someones stupidity, and law breaking is becoming a liability for some guy that designed a bobsled track a quarter century ago? In many ways to me, that is a bigger tragedy than the kids that lost their lives.

Where do we draw the line on these frivolous lawsuits. To me this is absolutely no different than me, pulling a wheelie on my Ducati at 150 KPH in traffic, putting the nose down too hard, getting in a tank slapper, crashing, and then getting cut in half by a metal barrier. Then my estate saying:

1) Ducati should have a giant warning label on the motorcycle saying do not wheelie this bike.

2) The designer of the bike should have engineered the bike better to contravene the laws of physics, and not cause a tank slapper.

3) The Highway designer and road engineer should be responsible for not putting up a sign that says "Do not wheelie your motorcycle on this highway because you could get into a tank slapper and get run over by a semi truck."

4) Because people have wheelied motorcycles in the past and lived, a precedent has been set that I should be able to as well and not die.

5) The design of the metal barrier is flawed, because it failed to take into account a human body hitting it at a high rate of speed. Therefore the designer of the barrier, and the company that built it is responsible.

At what point do we no longer need a million disclaimers? Where does common sense end, and legal liability begin?

It is awful these kids lost their lives, and I feel for their families, I really do. I have done a ton of dumb stuff, and certainly some questionably legal stuff. But let's not forget the fact that these kids died, committing a crime. And the responsibility lies solely on them for that. I will be very disappointed if Winsport is forced to bear any responsibility for this.

[Fuzz]

It functioned as designed. It was designed to be operated under controlled conditions by trained staff. I don't see how this is an engineering failure. If someone stole a jet and crashed it on takeoff becuase they don't know what they are doing, is the manufacturer responsible?

Sorry, but the premise of the question is ridiculous.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by teamchachi

...gory details removed....

Was it really necessary to post this?

[speede5]

Boy we sure are getting worked up for a lawsuit that hasn't even happened yet.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by speede5

Boy we sure are getting worked up for a lawsuit that hasn't even happened yet.

And that is fair. We don't even know if the families will even pursue one. However, there seems to be a lot of people out there that seem to think one is warranted. And that is more or less who I am trying to address.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by pylon

At what point do we no longer need a million disclaimers? Where does common sense end, and legal liability begin?

It is awful these kids lost their lives, and I feel for their families, I really do. I have done a ton of dumb stuff, and certainly some questionably legal stuff. But let's not forget the fact that these kids died, committing a crime. And the responsibility lies solely on them for that. I will be very disappointed if Winsport is forced to bear any responsibility for this.

I believe a claim & maybe lawsuit will be started, as there is an insurance policy for COP. All the Plaintiff need to do is get 1% of the liability tagged onto the policy holder and that policy may have to pay 100% of the damage.

Joint and Several Liability.

That being said the vast majority of claims/lawsuits never get to a court. I am sure Vlad will confirm that it really is an arena of last resort.

We often forget that insurance companies will negotiate out of claims/lawsuits instead of incurring the legal costs associated with battling the claim/lawsuit.

[troutman]

Recent Alberta Court of Appeal Decision Confuses our Understanding of an Occupier’s Duty of Care
Historical Development of Occupiers’ Liability in Canada
Recent Trends in Alberta Case Law


http://www.rmc-agr.com/recent-albert...-duty-of-care/

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by troutman

Recent Alberta Court of Appeal Decision Confuses our Understanding of an Occupier’s Duty of Care
Historical Development of Occupiers’ Liability in Canada
Recent Trends in Alberta Case Law


http://www.rmc-agr.com/recent-albert...-duty-of-care/

That is a 2011 article, is it still current, or has there been other developments.

[darklord700]

Let's assume there was no gate in the middle and people were hurt or killed when they made it down to the end of the run, will COP still be liable in this case?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

That is a 2011 article, is it still current, or has there been other developments.

Tried to find the most recent and local blog I could. Vlad could say where the law has evolved since 2011.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Per the Occupiers Liability Act, it is irrelevant if they were trespassers or invitees.

I realize that you do it for living and you are probably right, but I just did a quick research out of curiousity and found that

(e) “visitor” means
(i) an entrant as of right,
(ii) a person who is lawfully present on premises by virtue of an express or implied term of a contract,
(iii) any other person whose presence on premises is lawful, or
(iv) a person whose presence on premises becomes unlawful after the person’s entry on those premises and who is taking reasonable steps to leave those premises.


so trespassers do not seem to fit under "visitors" category to me. Not that I really care or willing to start a lawy debate, but I am always curious about laws. And yes I am probably wrong.

[Fuzz]

Curious... so the guy who climbed the crane downtown a few months ago, if he had fallen to his death, could the family have sued and won?