Results 1 to 6 of 6
-
03-26-2018, 09:43 PM #1
LIABILITY FOR COMMERCIAL TRAILS OPERATIONS IN B.C: (or ride at your own risk in B.C.
There are many TGR bike and law dorks I have come to realize after reading about the Wilderness Act and the interesting (to me discussion) on this little obscure forum
Reading about the Wilderness Act got me very interested in the material put out by Singletracks. I just started contributing to them.
This is one piece I wrote which will go them and I legal-dorked over and revisited because I'm finishing up something about liability of trailbuilding in Canada.
Here it is http://www.leelau.net/sharonandlee/c...b-c-bikeparks/
To sum it up if you're in a bike park in BC you're on your own. This also applies to ski guiding, heli-skiing etc etc
-
04-01-2018, 08:56 AM #2
Thx, interesting.
It’s worthwhile noting that this part of the decision was by no means a slam-dunk as two different Ontario decisions (both ski-area release/waivers) found that plaintiffs could still sue ski areas even though they had signed waivers on the basis of Ontario consumer protection legislation.
From the little bit of research I've done, the absurd affordability of world-class skiing in CH and FR alps (despite labor costs) is partly due to the massive difference in insurance premiums vs US.
-
04-01-2018, 10:03 PM #3
Ontario is so fucking hot and cold its ridiculous. I did volunteer counsel work for Shames. Canadian insurance for skiing is.about 2x that of Europe and Japan but about 3 to 5x LESS than of the US.
In Japan and EU they don't sue. In Canada they sue but lose and badly. In the US they sue and sometimes they win. And that freaks out insurers.
The Ontario Case was Schnarr vs Blue Mountain overturning waivers based on consumer protection laws. But the Ontario court of appeal just last week just overturned the trial court so the province of ON joins the rest of the country in upholding waivers and turns its face from the darkness of US uncertainty
-
04-06-2018, 10:54 AM #4Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2018
- Posts
- 7
Very interesting, good work on the research. I’d say the court got it right, from a common sense look at the facts in that case.
I will say there are reasons that tort law is so strong in favor of plaintiffs here in the US (in my opinion)... Our tort law evolved as a way for powerless individuals to take on massively powerful corporate tortfeasors, who were sometimes literally getting away with murder. A strong tort law is often the only barrier to reckless/negligent behavior by big industry players like auto, food, drug, etc.
I also find it interesting that some of the local parks I ride are actually city parks and don’t have waivers at all. Case law in my state (Washington) protects landowners from liability unless there are “known, latent” defects that cause injury. As far as I know, no one has ever successfully sued the city or county for injuries in one of our fantastic, user built and publicly funded parks.
Thanks for sharing your work in the article!
-
04-08-2018, 08:13 PM #5
I think there’s some more mundane reasons behind the differences...
1. Universal health care in CA means that Mr Jamison’s medical and disability costs will be paid by the Province, and they don’t try to subrogate unless it’s obvious. In US those costs get paid by a for-profit insurer, who will unleash their legal hounds to get out of paying.
2. The Canada West Ski Areas Assn does not settle lawsuits unless it’s obvious. That keeps plaintiffs from using the nuisance strategy to make a quick buck. In US businesses take a more cost-centered approach which only encourages legal extortion.
3. There’s way fewer lawyers per-capita in CA vs USA.
-
04-08-2018, 10:58 PM #6
Bookmarks