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

[Kjesse]

If there's a lawsuit here to pursue, it would be by an injured party against someone who convinced them they knew it was safe to go there. A homeowner's insurance policy might respond to that kind of claim depending on the nature of the coverage.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Delgar

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)

Delgar, What is a "joint and several liability claim"?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Delgar

You said standard of care, not duty.

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

Depends on the history of joyrides down the track. That's where the "know" part could play. But then the fence might be sufficient. I really don't want to know anything about this.
What was the main case - CN Rail?

[Kjesse]

Some reading since I've been asked:


[14] The Contributory Negligence Act ch. C-27, R.S.A. 2000, s. allows the apportionment of liability and the determination of the degree of fault by the court. Pursuant to this legislation, one uninsured tortfeasor, for example, could be found 85% liable for the accident, with the other insured tortfeasor found to be 15% liable. Subsection 2(2) provides that when two or more persons are found at fault, they are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff, but as between themselves, in the absence of a contract express or implied, they are liable to make contribution to and indemnify each other in the degree in which they are respectively found to have been at fault.

[15] The Tortfeasors Act, ch. T-5, R.S.A. 2000, provides that a plaintiff can seek payment of the entire amount outstanding from any party found liable. Therefore, pursuant to this legislation, a successful plaintiff could seek payment of all of his or her damages from the insured tortfeasor who was found only 15% liable. There is no provision in this legislation that alters its applicability to uninsured or unidentified tortfeasors. The legislation is silent.

ALSO, there are indemnification provisions. In short, COP isn't getting tagged for the whole of this even if they're at least 1% liable.

And Vlad, I pointed out you said "standard" not "duty" because I think technically you are right about saying the act doesn't change the standard applicable... but it does restrict whether a duty is claimed.

[VladtheImpaler]

There is also the willful or reckless disregard hook, depending on the exact nature of that gate. They were also "children". This is too technical at this point. I just think there is enough here if the injuries are bad enough that someone will run it. I would not, as I said.

[PepsiFree]

Thanks for clearing that up Delgar, your take on it is similar to what I had been reading before undercover basically said I was dumb for questioning Vlad lol.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Delgar, What is a "joint and several liability claim"?

I think what Delgar is saying is that you're mixing up Contributory negligence with joint and several liability. Contributory negligence is where the Plaintiff has done something or not done something contributes to their damages. For example not wearing a seatbelt; you might still be liable for a car accident, but if they're not wearing a seatbelt then they could be negligent for some of their own damages. This is apportioned on a percentage.

Joint and several liability means there are more than one party negligent and as a Plaintiff you just prove negligence and let them sort out who is paying and how it's split. So the Plaintiff doesn't care about how the multiple defendants have split liability; once liability is proven or agreed to, they can sort that out themselves or subrogate between them.

Time for someone to go do the liability course in their CIP!

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Thanks for clearing that up Delgar, your take on it is similar to what I had been reading before undercover basically said I was dumb for questioning Vlad lol.

And then went on to ask a bunch of questions himself, lol.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by jayswin

And then went on to ask a bunch of questions himself, lol.

Why?

Can you clarify?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Duruss

The weir is effing terrifying. I remember seeing the size of some of the logs caught in the flow and how the water was spinning them like nothing. I think going into that would be like going into the rock crusher in Temple of Doom.

It was but they redesigned it. There used to be a big sign calling it a "drowning machine" - probably the most graphic sign I've ever seen.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by getbak

Doesn't that describe virtually every construction site in the world?

Yes, and that is why they too require safety mechanisms. Not being an expert or anything, I just don't know if a fence is enough.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Why?

Can you clarify?

I would double thank this if I could.

[Kjesse]

I did not get the undercurrent of humour in the thread until I skimmed it all just now.

Undercoverbrother, just a suggestion, if you don't know, don't post with such definitive language. Arguing for its own sake should be discouraged here.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I did not get the undercurrent of humour in the thread until I skimmed it all just now.

Undercoverbrother, just a suggestion, if you don't know, don't post with such definitive language. Arguing for its own sake should be discouraged here.

Don't waste your breath. He does know. He's a 50 year old teenager. He laughs at how annoying and ridiculous he is. He's laughing at me just for writing this. For some reason, there are people that get a kick out of pretending to be ######ed. It's a schtick that unfortunately isn't ban-worthy, so the rest of us have to put up with it.

[WhiteTiger]

The last couple pages have been some fascinating reading, and I admit that I actually feel a bit better knowing that while it's still possible, it's less likely that "someone" can be sued by a trespasser who hurts/kills themselves.

It really felt like one of those "common sense flying ignored in the face of the legal system" sort of situations.

[Philly06Cup]

Too many people focusing on the fence to the property. My biggest issue is with the entrance to the track. There is a track that appears to be fun to slide down. Nay, the track is designed to be fun to slide down. Turns out that track leads to DEATH. It is a literal death trap with a brick wall at the end. The risks to playing with a caged tiger or jumping into a river are quite plain to see. A construction site is not designed to be fun, and doesn't usually carry the same degree of foreseeable harm as a speeding tunnel towards a brick wall.

In my eyes, the entrance to the tunnel of death needs to be heavily locked and barricaded when it is not being securely supervised. Anything short is negligence by creating a serious fatal risk to all persons in the vicinity.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

Too many people focusing on the fence to the property. My biggest issue is with the entrance to the track. There is a track that appears to be fun to slide down. Nay, the track is designed to be fun to slide down. Turns out that track leads to DEATH. It is a literal death trap with a brick wall at the end. The risks to playing with a caged tiger or jumping into a river are quite plain to see. A construction site is not designed to be fun, and doesn't usually carry the same degree of foreseeable harm as a speeding tunnel towards a brick wall.

In my eyes, the entrance to the tunnel of death needs to be heavily locked and barricaded when it is not being securely supervised. Anything short is negligence by creating a serious fatal risk to all persons in the vicinity.

Its been mentioned in this thread already, the entrance to the track is a small building that has both a man-door and a garage door for, get this, Bobsleds.

So they have to climb the fence, get to the top of the track, break into the building, remove the starting gate and then they're ready to go.

It isnt just trespassing, its Breaking and Entering as well so it takes a misdemeanor and an intermediate felony just to get to the start.

And calling it a 'Death Trap' is disingenuous because I dont think anyone has ever died on it before in its 30+ year history.

So if its a death trap its a pretty lousy one by trapping no one to their deaths up until now.

[RougeUnderoos]

nah

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Why?

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Delgar,

That was me.

Can you please clarify it then?

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Thanks

Can you clarify and expand.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Delgar, What is a "joint and several liability claim"?

[Philly06Cup]

Originally Posted by Locke

Its been mentioned in this thread already, the entrance to the track is a small building that has both a man-door and a garage door for, get this, Bobsleds.

So they have to climb the fence, get to the top of the track, break into the building, remove the starting gate and then they're ready to go.

It isnt just trespassing, its Breaking and Entering as well so it takes a misdemeanor and an intermediate felony just to get to the start.

And calling it a 'Death Trap' is disingenuous because I dont think anyone has ever died on it before in its 30+ year history.

So if its a death trap its a pretty lousy one by trapping no one to their deaths up until now.

I've read through the whole thread and didn't find this information. I would still want that man-door (?) and garage door securely locked. If some stupid kids could easily get through those measures, I don't think Winsport has done enough. I stand by my coining of the phrase death trap. It's an inconspicuous tunnel (trap) that leads to you hurtling 100km/hr into brick wall (death). The more dangerous the contraption the greater duty of care to ensure no one winds up in it.