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

[VladtheImpaler]

Based on the information I have learned in THIS THREAD ONLY (I have not, nor will I, do any other research, unless there is a reason to), if I was representing the dead kids' next of kin, I think 75-80 (maybe more)% of the blame for their death would rest with COP. The gate IS a death trap, people slid down before, so they should have been aware of the possibility, it doesn't sound like there was any signage warning of the barricade. Per the Occupiers Liability Act, it is irrelevant if they were trespassers or invitees. Slava I think brought up the example of the barbed wire/snowmobile case, and I think that is exactly on point. They have created a trap on their property, and have not made adequate provision to safeguard visitors. The standard of care is "what would a reasonable person do" - I would think, given the danger, padding on the barricade, signage warning of the barricade on top would be two things that were lacking.
I am sorry to get into legal analysis here, and again this is just my opinion, based on no information, other than what I have seen here.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Maybe I'm a cynical person, but I actually don't think it would have made a lick of difference if you littered the place in all kinds of signs.

Recall the center street bridge sign that warns people about the low clearance of the lower bridge deck. Despite it's advanced placement and flashing lights, it gets repeatedly pummeled by drivers who do not read and take head at the obvious sign.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/12/18...arning-systems

In the case of the centre street bridge i think it's combination of people just not paying attention and also not knowing the size of their vehicle, like in the article it mentions rental Uhauls getting stuck under there. How many people here actually know the height of their ride, sure for more vehicles it doesn't matter but in general people don't know.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

You're obsessed with this gate. No it isn't yeah probably. Like you said the blame is 100% on the kids, which means not COP won't/shouldn't be held responsible. There are enough signs, one more isn't going to make a huge difference. They broke into the place in the first place, pretty positive there are all sorts of signs they ignored already.

All COP need to be is 1% responsible and they can pay 100% of the award.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Based on the information I have learned in THIS THREAD ONLY (I have not, nor will I, do any other research, unless there is a reason to), if I was representing the dead kids' next of kin, I think 75-80 (maybe more)% of the blame for their death would rest with COP. The gate IS a death trap, people slid down before, so they should have been aware of the possibility, it doesn't sound like there was any signage warning of the barricade. Per the Occupiers Liability Act, it is irrelevant if they were trespassers or invitees. Slava I think brought up the example of the barbed wire/snowmobile case, and I think that is exactly on point. They have created a trap on their property, and have not made adequate provision to safeguard visitors. The standard of care is "what would a reasonable person do" - I would think, given the danger, padding on the barricade, signage warning of the barricade on top would be two things that were lacking.
I am sorry to get into legal analysis here, and again this is just my opinion, based on no information, other than what I have seen here.

I'm not sure they could put padding on the gate though? It's basically the track for each side, kind of like a railway switch.

If there is a gate at the top of the run that way bypassed should/would that not be enough?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Based on the information I have learned in THIS THREAD ONLY (I have not, nor will I, do any other research, unless there is a reason to), if I was representing the dead kids' next of kin, I think 75-80 (maybe more)% of the blame for their death would rest with COP. The gate IS a death trap, people slid down before, so they should have been aware of the possibility, it doesn't sound like there was any signage warning of the barricade. Per the Occupiers Liability Act, it is irrelevant if they were trespassers or invitees. Slava I think brought up the example of the barbed wire/snowmobile case, and I think that is exactly on point. They have created a trap on their property, and have not made adequate provision to safeguard visitors. The standard of care is "what would a reasonable person do" - I would think, given the danger, padding on the barricade, signage warning of the barricade on top would be two things that were lacking.
I am sorry to get into legal analysis here, and again this is just my opinion, based on no information, other than what I have seen here.

You can't pad the barricade or it doesn't work as an ice-wall. The purpose of the barricade is so when you hit it from the correct side you stay in the track.

I am interested in how this works in normal operation as it seems pretty high risk for a lethal mistake to made while training.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

All COP need to be is 1% responsible and they can pay 100% of the award.

I'm not sure this is true.

There is a maximum people can claim (for car accidents anyway, not sure about this), I think it was around $90K for a parent. So they could also end up paying less than this if they were partially liable.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

I'm not sure this is true.

There is a maximum people can claim (for car accidents anyway, not sure about this), I think it was around $90K for a parent. So they could also end up paying less than this if they were partially liable.

There will be more that claims under the Fatal Accident Act brought forward.

Fatalities are cheap.

1% can get you 100% of payment.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

There will be more that claims under the Fatal Accident Act brought forward.

Fatalities are cheap.

1% can get you 100% of payment.

Actually fatalities are cheaper than life long injuries.

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/F08.pdf

(2)

If an action is brought under this Act, the court, without

reference to any other damages that may be awarded and without

evidence of damage, shall award damages for grief and loss of the

guidance, care and companionship of the deceased person of

(a) subject to subsection (3), $82 000 to the spouse or adult

interdependent partner of the deceased person,

(b) $82 000 to the parent or parents of the deceased person to be

divided equally if the action is brought for the benefit of

both parents, and

(c) $49 000 to each child of the deceased person.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Actually fatalities are cheaper than life long injuries.

Yeah I know, that's why I said "fatalities are cheap".

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

The standard of care is "what would a reasonable person do"

Or more so, what a reasonable person WOULD NOT DO.

Again, I don't think it's the responsibility of others to bubble wrap everything that could hurt a person who is hell bent on doing something stupid.

Short of filling the entire run with concrete at the end of each day, nothing was going to keep out people who had it in their mind that they wanted to take a run down the hill.

It's in the same breath as the jackpots who jump tiger enclosures at zoos, get mauled and then people start screaming it's somehow the zoos fault.

Furthermore, I think I read somewhere that one of the people involved was a former employee? They should have had a better idea then most about the risks involved.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Yeah I know, that's why I said "fatalities are cheap".

Poor wording on my part. When I found out I was actually surprised that death was cheaper than just being injured.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Or more so, what a reasonable person WOULD NOT DO.

Again, I don't think it's the responsibility of others to bubble wrap everything that could hurt a person who is hell bent on doing something stupid.

Short of filling the entire run with concrete at the end of each day, nothing was going to keep out people who had it in their mind that they wanted to take a run down the hill.

It's in the same breath as the jackpots who jump tiger enclosures at zoos, get mauled and then people start screaming it's somehow the zoos fault.

Then the zoo should build a fence that is such a height that it can't me climbed.

[polak]

I remember feeling the same outrage we're seeing here over liabilities/negligence in my intro to business law course when we started looking at example cases. It was a big WTF moment.

[Resolute 14]

Honestly, COP being held liable in this case would appear (based on what I know) that the system is horribly broken.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Or more so, what a reasonable person WOULD NOT DO.

Again, I don't think it's the responsibility of others to bubble wrap everything that could hurt a person who is hell bent on doing something stupid.

Short of filling the entire run with concrete at the end of each day, nothing was going to keep out people who had it in their mind that they wanted to take a run down the hill.

It's in the same breath as the jackpots who jump tiger enclosures at zoos, get mauled and then people start screaming it's somehow the zoos fault.

As I posted earlier, a reasonable person knows a tiger is liable to eat you if you jump in the tiger enclosure.

A reasonable person expects that if you were to jump in the luge track you might or even probably will, end up crashing and getting banged around a bit. But a reasonable person would not expect to slam into a steel barrier blocking the track. This is evidenced by the fact almost no one who has posted in this thread even knew such a barrier existed, myself included.

As Vlad posted, winsport needs to be more to make knowledge of the barrier known to potential users of the track as it is a hidden danger.

[Hockeyguy15]

If they crashed an died without the gate would COP still be liable?

[speede5]

Originally Posted by Locke

Or....they could acknowledge the 'Private Property' sign. Or the 'No Trespassing' sign. Or the 'Authorized Personnel Only' sign.

But you're right, more signs is the answer.

They were negligent for not having that crucial final sign.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Then the zoo should build a fence that is such a height that it can't me climbed.

To keep you from escaping and ruining the internet?

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Dan02

A reasonable person expects that if you were to jump in the luge track you might or even probably will, end up crashing and getting banged around a bit. But a reasonable person would not expect to slam into a steel barrier blocking the track. This is evidenced by the fact almost no one who has posted in this thread even knew such a barrier existed, myself included.

A reasonable person wouldn't have jumped on the track in the first place. Period.

Did they do an inspection of the track ahead of time or just rip down it blindly?

Also, I mentioned one of the victims was a former employee, should they not have known?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Based on the information I have learned in THIS THREAD ONLY (I have not, nor will I, do any other research, unless there is a reason to), if I was representing the dead kids' next of kin, I think 75-80 (maybe more)% of the blame for their death would rest with COP. The gate IS a death trap, people slid down before, so they should have been aware of the possibility, it doesn't sound like there was any signage warning of the barricade. Per the Occupiers Liability Act, it is irrelevant if they were trespassers or invitees. Slava I think brought up the example of the barbed wire/snowmobile case, and I think that is exactly on point. They have created a trap on their property, and have not made adequate provision to safeguard visitors. The standard of care is "what would a reasonable person do" - I would think, given the danger, padding on the barricade, signage warning of the barricade on top would be two things that were lacking.
I am sorry to get into legal analysis here, and again this is just my opinion, based on no information, other than what I have seen here.

Wow am I sad for our legal system.