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

[Boxman]

My understanding is that when you make a case for tort, you sue everyone that could possibly be liable. So that would include the current operators, the safety authority, the designers, anyone. There is a separate duty of care for the operators and for the designers. The designer has a duty to design something that won't be inherently dangerous, and the operator has a duty to operate it in a way that is not dangerous.

My opinion is that the operator has operated the facility safely (a quarter century of safe operation) but the designer breached their duty of care. It is a miracle there has not already been an accident from someone going down the wrong track at the wrong time. From the get go it was always going to be only a matter of time until supervisory controls failed.

People have responsibility for their own actions. But engineers also have a duty of care to not design inherently unsafe bobsled track configurations.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

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/

Good article, and it is the pre-Christensen case where I was coming from in my earlier post on duty of care. To me, this is still sound reasoning:

As set out by Wood, just because there is a foreseeable risk, this does not automatically make the occupier liable. As stated correctly in the dissenting judgment, in “order to succeed, the plaintiffs… would have to prove on a balance of probabilities that a duty was owed to them by the City and having breached the appropriate standard of care, the City’s substandard actions caused the plaintiff’s… the damages complained of” (para. 35). To do away with these requirements is akin to imposing a standard of strict liability, or in other words, deem the occupier an insurer of the visitor, which is not the law in Canada.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Boxman

My understanding is that when you make a case for tort, you sue everyone that could possibly be liable. So that would include the current operators, the safety authority, the designers, anyone. There is a separate duty of care for the operators and for the designers. The designer has a duty to design something that won't be inherently dangerous, and the operator has a duty to operate it in a way that is not dangerous.

My opinion is that the operator has operated the facility safely (a quarter century of safe operation) but the designer breached their duty of care. It is a miracle there has not already been an accident from someone going down the wrong track at the wrong time. From the get go it was always going to be only a matter of time until supervisory controls failed.

People have responsibility for their own actions. But engineers also have a duty of care to not design inherently unsafe bobsled track configurations.

Why? Do you know all the safety features involved? Or the training given to the users? When used as designed it hasn't been an issue in 30 years. You consider that a miracle, I consider that maybe they have good procedures that work.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by 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

Well this is not true.
First Lake Placid has been redesigned and rebuilt a couple of times.
Secondly, every combined track has some version of a barrier separating the different runs.

Also, for what it's worth, at Calgary there are signs all over the track stating "Do not Enter track". And over the 15 bob tracks I can name in the world, I can't think of anything like this happening over the past 50 years.

Finally, for those that seem to think the track is some kind of death run. I've done skeleton runs from the luge start repeatedly. As I tell others, if gravity is given chance to do it's job, you get to the bottom without incident. A skeleton sled is on two runners and goes much faster than a flat bottomed sled. Unless you are actively trying to oversteer one is not going to be "ejected from the track" as a poster pages ago said.

One's moment of inertia keeps him in the optimum part of the track.

[Robo]

I dont understand how they could sue they weren't supposed to be there, that is like a robber breaking into your house and sueing you for hurting themselves while in your house

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Boxman

My understanding is that when you make a case for tort, you sue everyone that could possibly be liable. So that would include the current operators, the safety authority, the designers, anyone. There is a separate duty of care for the operators and for the designers. The designer has a duty to design something that won't be inherently dangerous, and the operator has a duty to operate it in a way that is not dangerous.

My opinion is that the operator has operated the facility safely (a quarter century of safe operation) but the designer breached their duty of care. It is a miracle there has not already been an accident from someone going down the wrong track at the wrong time. From the get go it was always going to be only a matter of time until supervisory controls failed.

People have responsibility for their own actions. But engineers also have a duty of care to not design inherently unsafe bobsled track configurations.

This is equivalent of jumping inside the back of a garbage truck to retrieve your Rolex you accidentally threw away, and someone flicking the switch and crushing you to death. The garbage truck is a death machine if used improperly and for it's unintended use. Is it the designer of the compactors fault you put a higher value on a watch, than your life?

There are probably a million equivalent examples. Anything can be convoluted into an instrument of death if used improperly. Why don't I swallow the calculator sitting on my desk, and sue Casio for not putting a "Do not eat this calculator." label on it.

The track wasn't designed for toboggans, to be used in unlit conditions, with no supporting track staff, by users with no safety equipment.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Robo

I dont understand how they could sue they weren't supposed to be there, that is like a robber breaking into your house and sueing you for hurting themselves while in your house

Yes and people have broken into houses, hurt themselves and successfully sued the homeowner. Like the case study I did in university that I posted earlier in here. A homeowner was doing renovations and someone broke into the house when no one was home and fell off the balcony or stairs (can't remember) and sued the homeowner and won. I'll see if I can find a link.

Edit: can't find the specific case but here is an american article about when it can happen:

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/...-injuries.html

I'm assuming the missing staircase without any sign or warning was viewed as negligent or whatever.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by craigwd

Well this is not true.
First Lake Placid has been redesigned and rebuilt a couple of times.
Secondly, every combined track has some version of a barrier separating the different runs.

Also, for what it's worth, at Calgary there are signs all over the track stating "Do not Enter track". And over the 15 bob tracks I can name in the world, I can't think of anything like this happening over the past 50 years.

Finally, for those that seem to think the track is some kind of death run. I've done skeleton runs from the luge start repeatedly. As I tell others, if gravity is given chance to do it's job, you get to the bottom without incident. A skeleton sled is on two runners and goes much faster than a flat bottomed sled. Unless you are actively trying to oversteer one is not going to be "ejected from the track" as a poster pages ago said.

One's moment of inertia keeps them in the optimum part of the track.

When you are at the start do you know what position the gate is in before starting a training run?

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by GGG

When you are at the start do you know what position the gate is in before starting a training run?

Seeing as he is posting in the thread about his experience, I would say yes.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by polak

Yes and people have broken into houses, hurt themselves and successfully sued the homeowner. Like the case study I did in university that I posted earlier in here. A homeowner was doing renovations and someone broke into the house when no one was home and fell off the balcony or stairs (can't remember) and sued the homeowner and won. I'll see if I can find a link.

Edit: can't find the specific case but here is an american article about when it can happen:

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/...-injuries.html

I'm assuming the missing staircase without any sign or warning was viewed as negligent or whatever.

Was it a Canadian case you reviewed or American? You linked to an American article. The laws, they are different between the two countries.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Was it a Canadian case you reviewed or American? You linked to an American article. The laws, they are different between the two countries.

Fairly certain it was Canadian but it was like 7 years ago so I might be wrong.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by polak

Yes and people have broken into houses, hurt themselves and successfully sued the homeowner. Like the case study I did in university that I posted earlier in here. A homeowner was doing renovations and someone broke into the house when no one was home and fell off the balcony or stairs (can't remember) and sued the homeowner and won. I'll see if I can find a link.

Edit: can't find the specific case but here is an american article about when it can happen:

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/...-injuries.html

I'm assuming the missing staircase without any sign or warning was viewed as negligent or whatever.

I think it's very much a North American thing to have our hands held wherever we go and the need to have warnings and sign plastered all over the place. Not in the name of safety. But in the name of avoiding lawsuits because that's what we do here. We sue when we feel the need to allocate blame because we are too foolish to think things through.

For example in Amsterdam when you park beside the canals, there is a sign that warns you of the water. No fence to block you off. No cement wall to impede your car in you park to far forward. If you drive to far and go in the water, it's your own fault. You use your own common sense to avoid danger.

I'm no lawyer and maybe it's just me. But I noticed North Americans need to have warning labels on their cups of coffee because we're to dumb to think ''gee this might be hot and cause me hard''. Or multiple lights, bells and crossing barriers so cars don't get smacked by trains, yet it happens all the time in this very city. I've always held the firm belief that people are responsible for their own actions. Obviously the laws here don't see it that way, and that's a shame. It's kind of disheartening to read Vlad's post that trespassing plays zero roll in liability suit. That sucks.

I think it's a travesty what happened to those kids. A foolish mistake any of us as youngsters could have made, that ultimately cost them their lives. It was also something they, and they themselves chose to do. Not Winsport. I hate to speak for those grieving families, but I hope they choose not to pursue a lawsuit. I'd be extremely disappointed if they did, and even more so if they won.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by GGG

When you are at the start do you know what position the gate is in before starting a training run?

To be clear, when I go down it's as an amateur.
But it is assumed that the track workers have set it up correctly.

During official runs there are cameras all over the track to ensure nothing is out of place, nothing is littering the track and there are no obstacles to get in the way of sliders.

[dubc80]

Originally Posted by pylon

This is equivalent of jumping inside the back of a garbage truck to retrieve your Rolex you accidentally threw away, and someone flicking the switch and crushing you to death. The garbage truck is a death machine if used improperly and for it's unintended use. Is it the designer of the compactors fault you put a higher value on a watch, than your life?

There are probably a million equivalent examples. Anything can be convoluted into an instrument of death if used improperly. Why don't I swallow the calculator sitting on my desk, and sue Casio for not putting a "Do not eat this calculator." label on it.

The track wasn't designed for toboggans, to be used in unlit conditions, with no supporting track staff, by users with no safety equipment.

Or another analogy would be a drawbridge which is closed and stuck in the up position.

If you drive a car over it Dukes of Hazard style, should the engineer who designed the bridge be liable? Not in my books.

[Ace]

I have to say, based on the track design I think COP has to be liable for the switch. Now that this incident has occurred there will certainly be an improvement made, and because it can be improved that ultimately will be on them to have foreseen. Seems like given the switch design the closed track should have some kind of foam barricade that would slow down any slider in the event the wrong track is used. I'm sure there is some sort of padding at the bottom of the track for instance.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by Ace

I have to say, based on the track design I think COP has to be liable for the switch. Now that this incident has occurred there will certainly be an improvement made, and because it can be improved that ultimately will be on them to have foreseen. Seems like given the switch design the closed track should have some kind of foam barricade that would slow down any slider in the event the wrong track is used. I'm sure there is some sort of padding at the bottom of the track for instance.

No, the outrun is long enough to stop on.
Though I have glanced the wall there, it's just part of the sport.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Ace

I have to say, based on the track design I think COP has to be liable for the switch. Now that this incident has occurred there will certainly be an improvement made, and because it can be improved that ultimately will be on them to have foreseen. Seems like given the switch design the closed track should have some kind of foam barricade that would slow down any slider in the event the wrong track is used. I'm sure there is some sort of padding at the bottom of the track for instance.

Yeah an improvement can be made.

Dont go down the damned track unless its open!

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by dubc80

Or another analogy would be a drawbridge which is closed and stuck in the up position.

If you drive a car over it Dukes of Hazard style, should the engineer who designed the bridge be liable? Not in my books.

No, but if the draw bridge is around a blind curve with no chance of stopping before you go over it the engineer needs to take all reasonable precautions to ensure that no one can will be able to hit the bridge while it is up.

So was the track designed with enough precautions to prevent people from using it when it was setup like this? If the teens entered the track at the top through the start house then the answer is most likely not.

I wish people would stop bring up the trespassing aspect, yes they shouldn't have been there doing it, we all can agree with that. However, as Vlad has mentioned, it's a completely moot point.

[flamesfan1297]

^Im sure people understand that the trespassing is moot point, however they are arguing that it shouldn't be a moot point. And I would tend to agree with that.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by flamesfan1297

^Im sure people understand that the trespassing is moot point, however they are arguing that it shouldn't be a moot point. And I would tend to agree with that.

And they broke in to the building at the starting gate.

Yeah, B&E is no big deal either.

I have a hard time believing that committing a couple of felonies on the way to this stunt should just be completely absolved.