zoso Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 11 hours ago, crispy said: Fubar! Anyone who attempts such a thing is a scum bag for dragging liability into the club. Hopefully the OFSC has enough legal front end to absolve themselves from any such stupidity. If you cant drive and control your vehicle? Its not the road or trails providers fault. Weasels who try and leverage liability like that are the kind of scum who are ruining the Canadian way of life. Problem is, the lawyers cost huge money to defend, so often a settlement is offered. Nobody should be allowed to sue a club. It is an off road activity with sleds now breaking 200hp. Of course you can die or be severely injured. Risk should be placed 100% where it belongs, on us, the riders. Don't like risk, get under the bed, wrap yourself up in bubble wrap and hide until god calls you home when you finally die of boredom. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PISTON LAKE CRUISER Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 I believe that I had read a few years ago that Quebec has the right answer. For lawsuits up to a maximum $ amount (can't remember the amount) If you sued and lost, you had to pay the other parties costs. Too bad Ontario wouldn't adapt this system. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Pete Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 14 hours ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said: I believe that I had read a few years ago that Quebec has the right answer. For lawsuits up to a maximum $ amount (can't remember the amount) If you sued and lost, you had to pay the other parties costs. Too bad Ontario wouldn't adapt this system. I might be wrong here but I thought the cap was $500K which was why the insurance included in the FCMQ is only $500k. But I also remember something to the effect that the limitation had an end date which was fast approaching (or may have even come and gone)..There was some big rumblings within the OFSC over a Quebec case where a rider from North bay was award3d $3.2M after being injured by hitting a buried stump on the side of the trail. The concern was that the case precedent could water down the Assumption of Risk agreement every permit buyer agrees to. https://northernontario.ctvnews.ca/man-awarded-3-28m-after-snowmobile-trek-from-north-bay-to-quebec-ends-in-tragedy-1.6409886 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulslund Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 22 hours ago, Big Pete said: I might be wrong here but I thought the cap was $500K which was why the insurance included in the FCMQ is only $500k. But I also remember something to the effect that the limitation had an end date which was fast approaching (or may have even come and gone)..There was some big rumblings within the OFSC over a Quebec case where a rider from North bay was award3d $3.2M after being injured by hitting a buried stump on the side of the trail. The concern was that the case precedent could water down the Assumption of Risk agreement every permit buyer agrees to. https://northernontario.ctvnews.ca/man-awarded-3-28m-after-snowmobile-trek-from-north-bay-to-quebec-ends-in-tragedy-1.6409886 To be fair, it looks like in this case the stump wasn't on the side of the trail, it was on the trail according to the article. I'm not sure how the groomers missed that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strong Farmer Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 11 minutes ago, paulslund said: To be fair, it looks like in this case the stump wasn't on the side of the trail, it was on the trail according to the article. I'm not sure how the groomers missed that. I am surprised he have that much damage to his body only traveling at 30 to 40 km an hour. Something not right there. I have fallen off at higher speeds and barely a scratch on me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strong Farmer Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Just now, Strong Farmer said: I am surprised he have that much damage to his body only traveling at 30 to 40 km an hour. Something not right there. I have fallen off at higher speeds and barely a scratch on me. My cousin launched his formula 3 straight into a tree first ride out (icey corner) sled was a right off and whole front end was pushed it. He walked away too I bet he was going 60 plus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PISTON LAKE CRUISER Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 30 minutes ago, paulslund said: To be fair, it looks like in this case the stump wasn't on the side of the trail, it was on the trail according to the article. I'm not sure how the groomers missed that. Short story is that if the stump was on the groomed/travelled portion of the trail the groomer wouldn't miss it and in fact it may have been the drag from the groomer that took the bark off the stump on the last grooming. In Ontario each club was supposed to have someonne whose responsibility it is to look for dangerous spots on the trail and direct having it repaired and also go out to accident scenes and take information and pictures for use by the OFSC in defending themselves. I believe the position was called Orr's (sp). I cannot say for sure if that is still a requirement of the OFSC or not. If the Quebec clubs had a similar club job the lawsuit results may have been different. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Pete Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 9 hours ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said: Short story is that if the stump was on the groomed/travelled portion of the trail the groomer wouldn't miss it and in fact it may have been the drag from the groomer that took the bark off the stump on the last grooming. In Ontario each club was supposed to have someonne whose responsibility it is to look for dangerous spots on the trail and direct having it repaired and also go out to accident scenes and take information and pictures for use by the OFSC in defending themselves. I believe the position was called Orr's (sp). I cannot say for sure if that is still a requirement of the OFSC or not. If the Quebec clubs had a similar club job the lawsuit results may have been different. Yes every club is supposed to have a trained ORS responder. Their job is to document any/all3rd party incidents that could be a liability issue for the club/district/ofsc. That includes and injuries/fatalities, property damage, basically anything we might get sued for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.