Ontario's helmet law discriminates against devout Sikhs, court told

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Well it is proved all the time. That is why they have expert witnesses in court rooms.

The following are decisions of the Alberta Court of Appeal on Contributory Negligence

http://www2.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/...08abca0056.pdf
http://www2.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/...07abca0004.pdf

http://www2.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/...04abca0374.pdf

The last one is a case where a drunk smoked a work truck and caused brain damage for the drunk driver. The company that the individual worked for was assessed 75% of the damage despite the fact that the individual who hit the vehicle was legally driving while impaired.

Again, courts do this all the time. It would be very easy for a court to make a judgment on what was caused by the crash and what was caused by lack of wearing a helmet.

Ok, you can think that.

[Savvy27]

Well if the motorcycle rider had his legs and ribs broken, clearly this result would not have been prevented by wearing a helmet. On the other hand, if the rider suffers brain damage from the impact and spends the rest of his days in long term care facility the court would hear arguments and expert testimony to determine if a helmet would have made a difference.

Ken's argument clearly stated that the damages of the same accident would be significantly ($1.48 million) different with the only difference in the circumstances of the accident being a helmet.

[ken0042]

Let's say you guys are 100% correct about it being proven in court with expert witnesses as to the degree of injury; and how much a helmet would have helped. (I'm not saying I agree with you, but let's just say.)

Now that means my life is put on hold as I sit and wait for a court to determine my fate. Don't these things last months or even years? Then when the decision is reached and I only have to pay 1/2 of the $1.5M; the family appeals. Then we start all over again. Meanwhile my life is in limbo.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Well if the motorcycle rider had his legs and ribs broken, clearly this result would not have been prevented by wearing a helmet. On the other hand, if the rider suffers brain damage from the impact and spends the rest of his days in long term care facility the court would hear arguments and expert testimony to determine if a helmet would have made a difference.

Ken's argument clearly stated that the damages of the same accident would be significantly ($1.48 million) different with the only difference in the circumstances of the accident being a helmet.

When it comes to mecial problems like this, depending on the "expert" witness you can afford will depend on which way the court decision will go.

There are way to many variables involved in something like this.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Let's say you guys are 100% correct about it being proven in court with expert witnesses as to the degree of injury; and how much a helmet would have helped. (I'm not saying I agree with you, but let's just say.)

Now that means my life is put on hold as I sit and wait for a court to determine my fate. Don't these things last months or even years? Then when the decision is reached and I only have to pay 1/2 of the $1.5M; the family appeals. Then we start all over again. Meanwhile my life is in limbo.

A couple things. Your life would not be in limbo. Almost immediately the insurance company would subrogate the claim. From then on the insurance company would be responsible for the legal costs, it would not affect you personally, you would not be paying any legal bills.

Also in your fact scenario, you would never have to pay half of the 1.5 million. There would never be a court that would decide that. The judge is not going to sit there and say "I can't figure this out, let's split the baby".

As for the "quality of expert" you could employ, in a case like this it would be insurance company against insurance company. Both sides would have high quality "experts". If the court feels that it has not heard fair testimony or good enough testimony it has the right to get a third expert in as well.

It is not like one side has Dr. Nick Riviera and the other side has the leading expert in North America. If for some absolutely bizarre reason this happened, the judge would almost certainly ask for a third independent expert to be heard by the court.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

A couple things. Your life would not be in limbo. Almost immediately the insurance company would subrogate the claim. From then on the insurance company would be responsible for the legal costs, it would not affect you personally, you would not be paying any legal bills.

Also in your fact scenario, you would never have to pay half of the 1.5 million. There would never be a court that would decide that. The judge is not going to sit there and say "I can't figure this out, let's split the baby".

As for the "quality of expert" you could employ, in a case like this it would be insurance company against insurance company. Both sides would have high quality "experts". If the court feels that it has not heard fair testimony or good enough testimony it has the right to get a third expert in as well.

It is not like one side has Dr. Nick Riviera and the other side has the leading expert in North America. If for some absolutely bizarre reason this happened, the judge would almost certainly ask for a third independent expert to be heard by the court.

I think your making this way to simple. It isn't. Like I said there are many variables. The insurance company doesn't always have your best interests at stake. What if both parties have the same insurer? Sometimes these cases need to be taken on ones own inititive.