Bylaw lists only 18 legal toboggan hills locations in Calgary.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Obviously I'm kidding, but how is it any different from the Hamilton laywer getting $900K for hurting himself sledding on an illegal hill, or the Edmonton lady that crashed into a ski jump?

In fact, it's the city's responsibility to properly maintain side walks, I'd say I'd have a better case than those two.

In short, the city is protected by the Municipal Act. The city needs to be grossly negligent to get tagged. A crack in the sidewalk isn't by default the city's fault.

If you want to get some $$$ look to fall on private land, your changes are better. Generally, small strip malls have piss poor risk mitigation/maintenance.

[Coach]

So were these other cities just grossly negligent? Hamilton even had a ban in place and still lost. Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Thanks for the tip. I will re-route my jogging path through a couple stripmalls

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MattyC

So were these other cities just grossly negligent? Hamilton even had a ban in place and still lost. Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Thanks for the tip. I will re-route my jogging path through a couple stripmalls

Had to say.

I don't know all the particulars of the Hamilton decision, but I could see the city getting hit with some negligence if they knew that this hill was still being used and took no steps to "patrol" it or limit access. Tough to say without knowing everything about the incident. Also, the wording of the Act might be different in Ontario than Alberta. That could have an affect.


You got a link to that Hamilton story?

[Coach]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/we...ility-concerns

Just what was quoted on shermanator's post from last year (I didn't realize this thread was from last year until today haha).

In 2013, the city of Hamilton was ordered to pay lawyer Bruno Uggenti $900,000 after he injured his spine on a toboggan run — this despite the city’s tobogganing ban.

In Edmonton that same year, Samantha Giese filed a $900,000 lawsuit claiming she was injured when her sled collided with a ski jump.

Pretty much all it says.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MattyC

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/we...ility-concerns

Just what was quoted on shermanator's post from last year (I didn't realize this thread was from last year until today haha).



Pretty much all it says.

I believe the chick in Edmonton was in an area that she shouldn't have been.


Hamilton fella explained here:

http://www.blg.com/en/newsandpublica...blication_3560

[Coach]

Read through that, I still find it ridiculous.

"The Arbitrator found that the City did not meet this obligation. He found that the snow-covered ditch which led to the tobogganing accident was a hidden danger. The City knew about it, but did not take reasonable steps to warn tobogganers of this danger."

They banned tobogganing from the site. That's not reasonable enough warning?

"The Plaintiff Did Not Willingly Assume the Risk of Injury"

Lol wut? You're sliding down ice on a piece of plastic.

And the EDM lady in a place that she shouldn't have been?

These all seem like arguments FOR the city.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Read through that, I still find it ridiculous.

"The Arbitrator found that the City did not meet this obligation. He found that the snow-covered ditch which led to the tobogganing accident was a hidden danger. The City knew about it, but did not take reasonable steps to warn tobogganers of this danger."

They banned tobogganing from the site. That's not reasonable enough warning?

"The Plaintiff Did Not Willingly Assume the Risk of Injury"

Lol wut? You're sliding down ice on a piece of plastic.

Then why not plant shrubs on the hill side or maybe put up snow fence(s) during winter

And the EDM lady in a place that she shouldn't have been?

These all seem like arguments FOR the city.

I don't disagree, but generally courts bend over backwards for plaintiffs. The response would be much the same as above. Limit access, ie: snow fence, or supervise access.


To be clear I am not agreeing with the decisions.

[Coach]

My only response is to shake my head in silence.

I can't imagine having so little pride and accountability for myself that I would sue for my own stupidity and/or recklessness.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MattyC

My only response is to shake my head in silence.

I can't imagine having so little pride and accountability for myself that I would sue for my own stupidity and/or recklessness.

Nothing surprises me, nothing.