Jump to content

Grand River Conservation Association Off Limits to Snowmobilers


bbakernbay

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Spiderman said:

Guys, agreements, leases etc evolve and change with the times like everything else.

i highly doubt anyone here would want their own personal insurance providing endless coverage to people it should not be and I for one am glad the ofsc and their carrier closed off this egregious open area of blanket coverage to users it's not intended too.

 

we, us pass purchasers pay for that, we pay now, and we will pay later.

I agree but maybe there is a way to work together and reduce liability and insurance rates for both parties. There is power in numbers. Ofsc has done allot of good things it seems, in reguards to libabilty and insurance last several seasons. So I am optimistic this will get worked out for longer term, in near future. Wait and see it will take time for sure. Prey for snow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Strong Farmer said:

I agree but maybe there is a way to work together and reduce liability and insurance rates for both parties. There is power in numbers. Ofsc has done allot of good things it seems, in reguards to libabilty and insurance last several seasons. So I am optimistic this will get worked out for longer term, in near future. Wait and see it will take time for sure. Prey for snow. 

I agree, but the answer is not having the ofsc provide liability coverage and defend and pay claims for non members, i.e. Non permit buyers. It's time for the other user groups to start paying their way. The trail closures are what hurt the most, but the ofsc are taking the right stand on this and I support it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By allowing a "trail" on a piece of property, you inadvertently open that trail up to non sledders by giving them an easier avenue, whether or not they should be there, sounds like we/sledders paid for the "what if", for those other people that felt the trail was open to others, but now have placed limitation on that.

Catch 22 and can empathize with both sides, hopefully they come to common ground for the good of the sport, but very good chance they will not given the situation and how our judicial system deals with the obvious law breakers with such light hands.... 

Just another nail in the coffin I am afraid.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pal lawyers don't care if their client gets hurts while trespassing on someone else's property.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

1 hour ago, stoney said:

By allowing a "trail" on a piece of property, you inadvertently open that trail up to non sledders by giving them an easier avenue, whether or not they should be there, sounds like we/sledders paid for the "what if", for those other people that felt the trail was open to others, but now have placed limitation on that.

Catch 22 and can empathize with both sides, hopefully they come to common ground for the good of the sport, but very good chance they will not given the situation and how our judicial system deals with the obvious law breakers with such light hands.... 

Just another nail in the coffin I am afraid.

 

 

I agree with the bold.

 

1 hour ago, Spiderman said:

I agree, but the answer is not having the ofsc provide liability coverage and defend and pay claims for non members, i.e. Non permit buyers. It's time for the other user groups to start paying their way. The trail closures are what hurt the most, but the ofsc are taking the right stand on this and I support it.

I disagree.

 

The trail and its users becomes the problem of the trail builders. If I was a land owner I wouldn't be signing that agreement unless you cover me for anything that could possibly happen while there is a trail in place. Snowmobiler, dog walker, crosscountry skier, hell a transport truck, what ever....It better be your problem not mine or you can put your trail somewhere else.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

 

 

 

I agree with the bold.

 

I disagree.

 

The trail and its users becomes the problem of the trail builders. If I was a land owner I wouldn't be signing that agreement unless you cover me for anything that could possibly happen while there is a trail in place. Snowmobiler, dog walker, crosscountry skier, hell a transport truck, what ever....It better be your problem not mine or you can put your trail somewhere else.

 

 

 

I completely agree. If the trail wasn't in place most of " those other people that felt the trail was open to others" would not have that decision to make.

Edited by PISTON LAKE CRUISER
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Edited by PISTON LAKE CRUISER
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Spiderman said:

I agree, but the answer is not having the ofsc provide liability coverage and defend and pay claims for non members, i.e. Non permit buyers. It's time for the other user groups to start paying their way. The trail closures are what hurt the most, but the ofsc are taking the right stand on this and I support it.

Perhaps when the other people that use those snowmobile trails for cross country skiing, hiking and walking their dogs find the trails aren't groomed in the winter and they're slogging through knee deep snow, then they will become vocal about the situation. Then when the cyclists, hikers and dog walkers find the trails being reclaimed by nature since the snowmobilers aren't maintaining them they too will become vocal.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

Perhaps when the other people that use those snowmobile trails for cross country skiing, hiking and walking their dogs find the trails aren't groomed in the winter and they're slogging through knee deep snow, then they will become vocal about the situation. Then when the cyclists, hikers and dog walkers find the trails being reclaimed by nature since the snowmobilers aren't maintaining them they too will become vocal.

Exactly my thought as well.  A groomer leaves a 20 foot wide path with no trees growing in, weeds are knocked down, saplings are knocked over, bridges are maintained.  The list goes on and on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

 

 

 

I agree with the bold.

 

I disagree.

 

The trail and its users becomes the problem of the trail builders. If I was a land owner I wouldn't be signing that agreement unless you cover me for anything that could possibly happen while there is a trail in place. Snowmobiler, dog walker, crosscountry skier, hell a transport truck, what ever....It better be your problem not mine or you can put your trail somewhere else.

 

 

 

I hear what you are saying and completely understand,  but 20 years in the casualty claims field I will tell you that if that is what the landowner wants, your permit price will need to quadruple at the very least to offer such coverage.

 

like you, if I was a landowner I would take the same position, if I am at the ofsc table, I am taking theirs on this one, no way I would be opening that door to anything but our user group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

Here's another thought. There are clubs that do not get new MOU's signed every year. What will happen if a non-snowmobiler gets injured on land that was working on a previous year signed MOU and launches a lawsuit this winter ?

call your insurance company landowner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting quick read about the  Occupiers’ Liability Act.

 

https://diamondlaw.ca/blog/find-out-if-you-are-protected-under-ontario-premises-liability-law

 

It appears that anyone entering property to commit a crime, or that is trespassing without the occupier's permission or knowledge, is not protected by the Liability Act..ie this means they assume the risks associated with entering the property.

 

Seems to me that anyone not allowed on the OFSC prescribed trail is a trespasser and would have to bear the risks of doing so...

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On January 8, 2020 at 9:22 AM, paulslund said:

Here's an interesting quick read about the  Occupiers’ Liability Act.

 

https://diamondlaw.ca/blog/find-out-if-you-are-protected-under-ontario-premises-liability-law

 

It appears that anyone entering property to commit a crime, or that is trespassing without the occupier's permission or knowledge, is not protected by the Liability Act..ie this means they assume the risks associated with entering the property.

 

Seems to me that anyone not allowed on the OFSC prescribed trail is a trespasser and would have to bear the risks of doing so...

In a very, very broad broad sense, but there is plenty of case law on these subjects and hence why lawyers love these claims and they exist is the 10's of thousands, they will bring them against, and to challenge the Occupiers liability act, municipal,act etc....

 

Ask the OFSC how much it costs every year defending these claims.

the point is, they are forced to defend these actions, right or wrong, which is not cheap.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Spiderman said:

In a very, very broad broad sense, but there is plenty of case law on these subjects and hence why lawyers love these claims and they exist is the 10's of thousands, they will bring them against, and to challenge the Occupiers liability act, municipal,act etc....

 

Ask the OFSC how much it costs every year defending these claims.

the point is, they are forced to defend these actions, right or wrong, which is not cheap.

 

 

What I meant from the question is that the GRCA is technically protected from liability (as is the OFSC) so why would they want to make the OFSC liable for non-sledders on the trail?

 

But of course, as you point out, in this litigious society I suppose if they get sued they want a means to counter-sue the OFSC...  I wish I had become a lawyer!

 

It still boggles my mind that someone can willfully trespass on someone's property, injure themselves and successfully sue the owner of the property...

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, paulslund said:

What I meant from the question is that the GRCA is technically protected from liability (as is the OFSC) so why would they want to make the OFSC liable for non-sledders on the trail?

 

But of course, as you point out, in this litigious society I suppose if they get sued they want a means to counter-sue the OFSC...  I wish I had become a lawyer!

 

It still boggles my mind that someone can willfully trespass on someone's property, injure themselves and successfully sue the owner of the property...

 

Who sets these laws.

 

 

On 1/5/2020 at 1:03 PM, ArcticCrusher said:

Pal lawyers don't care if their client gets hurts while trespassing on someone else's property.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our insurance company agent arrived at time of renewal last year with a trunk full of no trespassing signs and fire extinguishers. He told me to put signs up near access points on property as well as around bush. Apparantly not trespassing unless it is clearly posted as such. 
It is possible for someone to go for a walk and hike across private property and end up in middle of snowmobile trail, without ever passing a sign too..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, paulslund said:

What I meant from the question is that the GRCA is technically protected from liability (as is the OFSC) so why would they want to make the OFSC liable for non-sledders on the trail?

 

But of course, as you point out, in this litigious society I suppose if they get sued they want a means to counter-sue the OFSC...  I wish I had become a lawyer!

 

It still boggles my mind that someone can willfully trespass on someone's property, injure themselves and successfully sue the owner of the property...

stupid law suits that are filed and won every year... I still remember this one from long ago. Guy breaks into a house just after people have gone on vacation. He decides to exit through the garage. The door from the house to the garage has a closer on it and locks behind him. He's stuck in the garage for almost two weeks living on dog kibble and Coke. He sues the owners because they had secured the overhead door in a way he couldn't get out. He won. A woman is shoplifting in a dept. store and as a distraction has her kid breaking crystal glassware while she stashes stuff away. He gets cut and she sues the store. Such fragile and dangerous items shouldn't be on a shelf low enough for a young kid to access.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

stupid law suits that are filed and won every year... I still remember this one from long ago. Guy breaks into a house just after people have gone on vacation. He decides to exit through the garage. The door from the house to the garage has a closer on it and locks behind him. He's stuck in the garage for almost two weeks living on dog kibble and Coke. He sues the owners because they had secured the overhead door in a way he couldn't get out. He won. A woman is shoplifting in a dept. store and as a distraction has her kid breaking crystal glassware while she stashes stuff away. He gets cut and she sues the store. Such fragile and dangerous items shouldn't be on a shelf low enough for a young kid to access.

Didn't this sign work?

 

"careful to look at careful to hold, but if you break it consider it sold"

 

Unbelievable the amount of fraud that occurs today from snowflakes that can't accept personal responsibility.  The  poor message we are sending to our youth from adults is pretty sad.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 02Sled said:

stupid law suits that are filed and won every year... I still remember this one from long ago. Guy breaks into a house just after people have gone on vacation. He decides to exit through the garage. The door from the house to the garage has a closer on it and locks behind him. He's stuck in the garage for almost two weeks living on dog kibble and Coke. He sues the owners because they had secured the overhead door in a way he couldn't get out. He won. A woman is shoplifting in a dept. store and as a distraction has her kid breaking crystal glassware while she stashes stuff away. He gets cut and she sues the store. Such fragile and dangerous items shouldn't be on a shelf low enough for a young kid to access.

Were those in Canada? I'd like to think those results wouldn't occur here but my faith in good ol' Canadian logic seems to waning recently...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, paulslund said:

Were those in Canada? I'd like to think those results wouldn't occur here but my faith in good ol' Canadian logic seems to waning recently...

I don't recall where the guy in the garage occurred. There is an award each year for the dumbest lawsuits that succeed and that was one of them. The other was related by our loss prevention manager at work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

I don't recall where the guy in the garage occurred. There is an award each year for the dumbest lawsuits that succeed and that was one of them. The other was related by our loss prevention manager at work

Hahaha, I remember hearing about those as well. Also the one where the coffee from McD's was too hot in the drive through. "Supposed to be hot, but not that hot"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Crow said:

Hahaha, I remember hearing about those as well. Also the one where the coffee from McD's was too hot in the drive through. "Supposed to be hot, but not that hot"

I think that was in Arizona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Crow said:

Hahaha, I remember hearing about those as well. Also the one where the coffee from McD's was too hot in the drive through. "Supposed to be hot, but not that hot"

Watch the documentary and have a look at the burns that old lady sustained, you may have a different opinion afterwards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...