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

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Next time an ambulance drives by just watch for Vlad he isn't too far behind, ask him then.

Pfff, insurance flunkie. My take hasn't changed since earlier in the thread. The Occupiers Liability Act does not distinguish between invited visitors and trespassers as far as the standard of care. The difference between the tiger and this is that here the danger is hidden (apparently). Slava was right on point with that snowmobile example. I wouldn't say any injury lawyers are licking their chops to represent people in this case - this will be a tough case and there is not that much money in it (saying that I have no idea how injured the survivors are). Much easier ways to make money. The weir example doesn't as there is a different (tougher) standard for suing a municipality. I am really not going to look into this in any depth, unless someone actually wants to hire me... I think that covers it.

[jayswin]

Haha vlady sneakily lays out why there's a good case here and opens himself up for business in the same post on a public forum.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Haha vlady sneakily lays out why there's a good case here and opens himself up for business in the same post on a public forum.

I don't think I'd want this case.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Pfff, insurance flunkie. My take hasn't changed since earlier in the thread. The Occupiers Liability Act does not distinguish between invited visitors and trespassers as far as the standard of care. The difference between the tiger and this is that here the danger is hidden (apparently). Slava was right on point with that snowmobile example. I wouldn't say any injury lawyers are licking their chops to represent people in this case - this will be a tough case and there is not that much money in it (saying that I have no idea how injured the survivors are). Much easier ways to make money. The weir example doesn't as there is a different (tougher) standard for suing a municipality. I am really not going to look into this in any depth, unless someone actually wants to hire me... I think that covers it.

The two injured that I know about, it sounds like they have permanently life altering injuries. I don't know them personally, but I get email updates as part of an organization.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The two injured that I know about, it sounds like they have permanently life altering injuries. I don't know them personally, but I get email updates as part of an organization.

Well, that's a whole different ball game. Somebody will certainly take it on and sue Winsport (or whoever is the entity).

[Weitz]

And my faith in Canada's justice system will sink lower.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Weitz

And my faith in Canada's justice system will sink lower.

Why?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Why?

Because I don't feel people who do something stupid and illegal should be able to make money off the stupidity. Regardless of the outcomes

[Kjesse]

Section 12 of the Occupiers Liability Act:

Trespassers
12(1) Subject to subsection (2) and to section 13, an occupier does not owe a duty of care to a trespasser on the occupier’s premises.
(2) An occupier is liable to a trespasser for damages for death of or injury to the trespasser that results from the occupier’s wilful or reckless conduct.

Section 13 deals with child trespassers. To have a duty you have to actually know they are there.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Because I don't feel people who do something stupid and illegal should be able to make money off the stupidity. Regardless of the outcomes

You are putting the cart before the horse.


People can sue for anything, it is up to the courts to decide if the matter is valid.


If, IF, a suit is brought, wait to see the court decision before you allow your faith to sink lower.

[undercoverbrother]

nm

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

You are putting the cart before the horse.


People can sue for anything, it is up to the courts to decide if the matter is valid.


If, IF, a suit is brought, wait to see the court decision before you allow your faith to sink lower.

You are right I will wait for a decision. It would only sink if they win any money.

Insanity to me.

[VladtheImpaler]

Delgar gave a more informative answer. I was taking a shortcut.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Delgar gave a more informative answer. I was taking a shortcut.

You said standard of care, not duty.

There is no case here of any worth unless you are a defence lawyer.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Section 12 of the Occupiers Liability Act:

Trespassers
12(1) Subject to subsection (2) and to section 13, an occupier does not owe a duty of care to a trespasser on the occupier’s premises.
(2) An occupier is liable to a trespasser for damages for death of or injury to the trespasser that results from the occupier’s wilful or reckless conduct.

Section 13 deals with child trespassers. To have a duty you have to actually know they are there.

I don't speak fluent legaleeze....but does this mean there aren't any meaningful grounds for a lawsuit here?

Does "unless you are a defence lawyer" mean defense autowin?

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

I don't speak fluent legaleeze....but does this mean there aren't any meaningful grounds for a lawsuit here?

Does "unless you are a defence lawyer" mean defense autowin?

In short yes, this is a loser case from the plaintiff's point of view. Feel bad for the kids involved, but its not a case where they sue for damages and get anything worthwhile, even with lifelong injuries.

Someone above commented about the 1% rule saying if you tag COP with 1% liability you can get all your damages from them... that is not applicable here either, that person misunderstands the rule.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Someone above commented about the 1% rule saying if you tag COP with 1% liability you can get all your damages from them... that is not applicable here either, that person misunderstands the rule.

Delgar,

That was me.

Can you please clarify it then?

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

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.

Bolded is completely incorrect in this situation... thanks for speaking up I found it easier.

The 1% rule is for joint and several liability claims, not claims, for example, where the Contributory Negiglence Act applies, as is expressly referenced in the Occupiers' Liability Act (I'm pretty sure, but you can check)

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Bolded is completely incorrect in this situation.

Thanks

Can you clarify and expand.

[Kjesse]

Yeah, here it is. I forgot to mention the Tort-feasor's Act though:

Application of other Acts
15
(1)
When the occupier does not discharge the common duty of
care to a visitor and the visitor suff
ers damage partly as a result of
the fault of the occupier and partly
as a result of the visitor’s own
fault, the
Contributory Negligence Act
applies.
(2)
When an occupier is liable under section 12(2) or 13, and the
trespasser or child trespasser, as the case may be, suffers damage
partly as a result of the fault of the occupier and partly as a result of
RSA 2000
Section 16 Chapter O-4
OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT
8
the trespasser’s or child tr
espasser’s own fault, the
Contributory
Negligence Act
applies.
(3)
When in an action brought under this Act 2 or more occupiers
of the same premises are each
found to be at fault, the
Tort-feasors
Act
applies.