LuvMyViper Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Hey dweese.. Good idea!!! Things have got out of hand everywhere and it is putting our sport into peril.. Not to mention what the economy, gas prices and the weather are doing to the sport of snowmobiling in Ontario... Maybe a new law of a lifetime ban from OFSC trails if your caught drinking or riding without a permit.. The threat of a life long ban makes people think several times before deciding it's not worth it (it helped me in hockey when I was handed a lifetime ban from the OMHA, which I fought and beat with having only a 10 game suspension)... Why have Ride at Own Risk signs when they are basically meaningless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutter Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I did not post it on our website because I was under the impression that, without explicit permission, that I would be violating some policy. As the owners of the document, I felt that if the OFSC wanted it published to the masses, they would have done that. As it was under password protection, I believed that it was not meant for public viewing and it was not up to me to unilaterally change that. If you are saying that it is OK to be posted, it certainly will be from here on. I never saw any confidential in house doc's pertaining to the Save Our Volunteers campaign ? I do remember a download that was there that many used for our club website ? Pretty sure it was the same as what was posted on the OFSC home page, and published in the mags. There's lots of stuff in there you can publish Dave, some specifically just for that. It's only there because it's an OFSC resource and that's where we go to get this stuff, just sticking a bunch of stuff out there in the open could easily get taken in the wrong context. If you have a question about what you can and cannot publish on your clubs website, just e-mail Jean at the OFSC and she'll let you know. Sandra (dist 3 admin) always forwards the bulletins for stuff like this out all our dists clubs (as should all dist admin), just like the one that went out last week to help us all have our websites sort of traveling in the same information HWY direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revrnd Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I'm pretty sure I remember sending in a card about the volunteering issue. It's not just snowmobiling volunteers that are affected in this lawsuit/liability crazy society we live in now. The only way I know about the Main Trail was seeing a few copies in the Paudash clubhouse 3 or 4 years ago. If we can be provided w/ the links to it in the future, that would be great. Rather than a paragraph in the OFSC "magazine", there was a proper article about the change, program, etc. When I saw the publication for the 1st time, I figured the OFSC kept it an internal release for fear of the permit buyers or worse, the general public seeing it. Personally I didn't see any that world be detrimental to the operation of the OFSC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutter Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I'm pretty sure I remember sending in a card about the volunteering issue. It's not just snowmobiling volunteers that are affected in this lawsuit/liability crazy society we live in now. The only way I know about the Main Trail was seeing a few copies in the Paudash clubhouse 3 or 4 years ago. If we can be provided w/ the links to it in the future, that would be great. Rather than a paragraph in the OFSC "magazine", there was a proper article about the change, program, etc. When I saw the publication for the 1st time, I figured the OFSC kept it an internal release for fear of the permit buyers or worse, the general public seeing it. Personally I didn't see any that world be detrimental to the operation of the OFSC. There isn't Kris .... just for kicks go through that Maintrail in the link and go through the first two editions of the Go Mag for this season, if I remember correctly there's very little that didn't make it into the mag. It'd be great to stick it all in one edition, but it's probably hard to come up with enough fresh material for each edition of the GO Mag with everyone being busy getting trails open, keeping them maintained then riding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PISTON LAKE CRUISER Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I have been led to believe that those big new red "Ride at your own risk" signs were derived from some that at least one of the Ontario Ski hill operators use. It apparently saved their bacon on a lawsuit launched against them. IMO the insurance costs of the OFSC (and all of us as well) will not drop until the judges in this province decide that people must be responsible for their own actions and stop handing out large $ settlement decisions in the favor of people that cause their own problems or sue for some frivilous reason. It would also help if Ontario like Quebec made people who lose lawsuits pay the legal costs of the people/ company they are suing if they lose their suit. I stand to be corrected here but I believe that the yearly insurance costs of the OFSC (it includes all our groomer insurance coverage costs ,directors liability insurance for club executive and volunteer insurance coverage ) dropped by well over a million dollars a year when the Risk Management system was put in place. The cost has increased again since that time but has been better held in check than previously because of our volunteers efforts in reporting, investigating and recording incidents on their club's trails. I'm sure there are some OCer's that know more about this than I do. I learned some of this at the mandatory training session for signage and risk management last fall. I agree the insurance coverage is too expensive but I wonder if alot of Ontario sledders realize all that is covered by the insurance policies the OFSC hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bark Biter Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Same with me, once I was educated on what it takes I contacted my local club and I now attend meetings and help as much I as can between work and school. BINGO, start at the bottom and learn. Although I still do not understand all the in's and out's of alot that goes on behind the OFSC I am slowly learning through the other means of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revrnd Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 The cost has increased again since that time but has been better held in check than previously because of our volunteers efforts in reporting, investigating and recording incidents on their club's trails. I think the clubs also record accidents that happen off OFSC trails as well. Recently there was a sled accident on cottage road that crosses Crown Land. A friend was asking me afterwards why so & so (from the closest club) would be into the garage (damaged sled taken there) w/ paperwork & asking questions about where the accident happened. I guessed that was so the club could document things in case...you guessed it, the snowmobiler tried to sue the local club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couchrocket500 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 What part of “Use at Your Own Risk” signage as well as the language in the trail pass waivers we all sign not regarded as sufficient to absolve OFSC (including individual clubs and volunteers ), as well as land owners from liabilities from accidents incurred by permit holders. Have any of these lawsuits ever made it to court where an actual judgement has been awarded/or not , or are they just settled “out of court” by the insurance companies? How do private entities such as Haliburton Forest ,ski-hills , sled clubs not associated with OFSC ,etc. handle these same liabilities? To the uneducated(me) these insurance costs do seem exorbant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutter Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 What part of “Use at Your Own Risk” signage as well as the language in the trail pass waivers we all sign not regarded as sufficient to absolve OFSC (including individual clubs and volunteers ), as well as land owners from liabilities from accidents incurred by permit holders. Have any of these lawsuits ever made it to court where an actual judgement has been awarded/or not , or are they just settled “out of court” by the insurance companies? How do private entities such as Haliburton Forest ,ski-hills , sled clubs not associated with OFSC ,etc. handle these same liabilities? To the uneducated(me) these insurance costs do seem exorbant. Here's the real crappy part of all, to keep our rates down we are self insured for the 1st million, meaning we pay the 1st million, the kicker is we don't have a say in settling or not because only the insurance reserves that right as they own the policy, so if they feel it's cheaper to pay out some then fight, we pay the first million. But thankfully with as mentioned extra diligence performed by volunteers over the past few years we have done very well in heeding actions against us before they even have a chance to get up any legal steam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Here's the real crappy part of all, to keep our rates down we are self insured for the 1st million, meaning we pay the 1st million, the kicker is we don't have a say in settling or not because only the insurance reserves that right as they own the policy, so if they feel it's cheaper to pay out some then fight, we pay the first million. But thankfully with as mentioned extra diligence performed by volunteers over the past few years we have done very well in heeding actions against us before they even have a chance to get up any legal steam. Even if a club wins a lawsuit we still end up paying the deductable to have our lawyers fight it , win, lose or draw we still pay .... upwards of a couple thousand dollars .. Thats the real kicker at club level .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbakernbay Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I did not post it on our website because I was under the impression that, without explicit permission, that I would be violating some policy. As the owners of the document, I felt that if the OFSC wanted it published to the masses, they would have done that. As it was under password protection, I believed that it was not meant for public viewing and it was not up to me to unilaterally change that. If you are saying that it is OK to be posted, it certainly will be from here on. Yes, I certainly thought about that, i.e. password protected. On the other hand they mail us 15 paper copies and i hand those out to Directors and others who want to know what is going on. IMHO the Main Trail is a great info piece to see what does go on at the OFSC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreezerBurnt Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 how so? if u buy a permit, u r essentially purchasing a membership to an ofsc member club that allows u to ride a provincial wide trail system. How is that a business? It is a membership to a club, it allows u a voice within ur club and access to trails maintained by other clubs across the province that belong to the federation. Do you not realize there is a difference between a federation and a business? Snowmobile clubs do not sell anything, you put ur money in and it is used to maintain a trail to ride on, don't try and make it more than it is. I can tell u this, if it is turned into a business, a permit is gonna be well north of 200 bux and u ain't gonna have a say. Businesses sell products and services for profit. Who r the share holders in this ofsc business u speak of? What are the shares worth in monetary value? Is it privately owned or does it trade publicly? I really fail to see how this is a business. It isn't even run like a business. Maybe that is the problem, u people think it is a business where a panel of a handful of people make the decisions and they can be made immediately, sorry, that is not what this is, that is not what u bought into. i don't know where u get the idea it is represented as a business WRONG , you buy a permit you buy the right to ride OFSC trails, but it does NOT give you a membership to many clubs the odd one yes but most has $5,10,20,30 single or family memberships btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreezerBurnt Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 We have seen the move away from community aka local clubs to business type and wonder why people don't care yet want a product Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bark Biter Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 WRONG , you buy a permit you buy the right to ride OFSC trails, but it does NOT give you a membership to many clubs the odd one yes but most has $5,10,20,30 single or family memberships btw Not so in our club, and because we are NOT rich by any means, we just love the new people we get coming out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02Sled Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 What part of “Use at Your Own Risk” signage as well as the language in the trail pass waivers we all sign not regarded as sufficient to absolve OFSC (including individual clubs and volunteers ), as well as land owners from liabilities from accidents incurred by permit holders. Have any of these lawsuits ever made it to court where an actual judgement has been awarded/or not , or are they just settled “out of court” by the insurance companies? How do private entities such as Haliburton Forest ,ski-hills , sled clubs not associated with OFSC ,etc. handle these same liabilities? To the uneducated(me) these insurance costs do seem exorbant. The unfortunate part is that you can post all the "own risk signs" you want and they are not worth a lot when it comes to going to court. I went through this once for a parking lot. You know the downtown Toronto lots where you pay and they have the huge sign that says you are leaving your car at your own risk and they are not responsible for any loss damage etc. In actuality since you have paid them to park your care there is a bailment that they are legally responsible to take "reasonable care and precaution" to take care of your car. So now your car gets broken into while parked 30 feet from the attendant in clear sight lines of the booth he is in but he fell asleep. Was he atking reasonable care of your car? That is for the court to decide. I didn't have to deal with it however my insurance company did. They went after the parking lot and recovered from them because they didn't take reasonable care even though the big sign said they were not responsible. I agree that if you get hurt because you are being stupid you shouldn't have the right to recover for your own stupidity. Now comes the trails. You pay for the use of the trails. Therefore the OFSC/clubs must take reasonable care to ensure your ride is safe. Hence the signage requirements. So now you have a ride at your own risk, a speed limit sign, a sign telling you of a turn ahead and you run the corner way too fast and land in the tress seriously hurting yourself and write off the sled. Common sense says you chalk it up to stupidity and move on. Reality says you are entitled to your day in court to let a judge decide if you can get some cash out of this since you are out money for the sled and possibly income not to mention medical expense etc. The fun begins. Unfortunatley we don't have any politicians willing to outlaw stupid and deny you the right to sue. But then that would open up another mess for someone to go to court for a judge to decide if he has the right to sue or was he being stupid and lose that right. The mess goes on and on in our very litigious society where everyone wants to blame someone else for their own stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dweese Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 The unfortunate part is that you can post all the "own risk signs" you want and they are not worth a lot when it comes to going to court. I agree that if you get hurt because you are being stupid you shouldn't have the right to recover for your own stupidity. Now comes the trails. You pay for the use of the trails. Therefore the OFSC/clubs must take reasonable care to ensure your ride is safe. Hence the signage requirements. So now you have a ride at your own risk, a speed limit sign, a sign telling you of a turn ahead and you run the corner way too fast and land in the tress seriously hurting yourself and write off the sled. Common sense says you chalk it up to stupidity and move on. Reality says you are entitled to your day in court to let a judge decide if you can get some cash out of this since you are out money for the sled and possibly income not to mention medical expense etc. The fun begins. Unfortunatley we don't have any politicians willing to outlaw stupid and deny you the right to sue. But then that would open up another mess for someone to go to court for a judge to decide if he has the right to sue or was he being stupid and lose that right. The mess goes on and on in our very litigious society where everyone wants to blame someone else for their own stupidity. So I wonder what the trick the Ski areas use to keep themselves out of court. I sat on the board of a local ski hill and was head of the ski patrol for 6 years. Never once even got a letter in the mail or even a word about someone who got hurt trying to sue the hill. 3 to 4 people die a year at the 108 ski areas in Canada. And here isn't even a helmet law for under 18 yet? So they are doing something to keep out of court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02Sled Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 So I wonder what the trick the Ski areas use to keep themselves out of court. I sat on the board of a local ski hill and was head of the ski patrol for 6 years. Never once even got a letter in the mail or even a word about someone who got hurt trying to sue the hill. 3 to 4 people die a year at the 108 ski areas in Canada. And here isn't even a helmet law for under 18 yet? So they are doing something to keep out of court. Could be a number of things such as out of court settlements. I realize there will be a large number of people injured skiing etc each year but I imagine there are significantly less hazards to blame your injuries on for a ski hill. For the most part they are clear wide open expanses of snow. No rock faces, sharp turns, road crossings, blind corners with oncoming traffic, trees laying down across your route of travel, water hazards etc. The ski hill meticulously grooms everything each day. The trails not necessarily. I know when I was skiiing they drove home to everyone ski in control and if they came across someone who thought they were an expert and obviously wasn't they would pull them aside and tell them to slow down. Try telling a sledder to slow down and see where it will get you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couchrocket500 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 The unfortunate part is that you can post all the "own risk signs" you want and they are not worth a lot when it comes to going to court. I went through this once for a parking lot. You know the downtown Toronto lots where you pay and they have the huge sign that says you are leaving your car at your own risk and they are not responsible for any loss damage etc. In actuality since you have paid them to park your care there is a bailment that they are legally responsible to take "reasonable care and precaution" to take care of your car. So now your car gets broken into while parked 30 feet from the attendant in clear sight lines of the booth he is in but he fell asleep. Was he atking reasonable care of your car? That is for the court to decide. I didn't have to deal with it however my insurance company did. They went after the parking lot and recovered from them because they didn't take reasonable care even though the big sign said they were not responsible. I agree that if you get hurt because you are being stupid you shouldn't have the right to recover for your own stupidity. Now comes the trails. You pay for the use of the trails. Therefore the OFSC/clubs must take reasonable care to ensure your ride is safe. Hence the signage requirements. So now you have a ride at your own risk, a speed limit sign, a sign telling you of a turn ahead and you run the corner way too fast and land in the tress seriously hurting yourself and write off the sled. Common sense says you chalk it up to stupidity and move on. Reality says you are entitled to your day in court to let a judge decide if you can get some cash out of this since you are out money for the sled and possibly income not to mention medical expense etc. The fun begins. Unfortunatley we don't have any politicians willing to outlaw stupid and deny you the right to sue. But then that would open up another mess for someone to go to court for a judge to decide if he has the right to sue or was he being stupid and lose that right. The mess goes on and on in our very litigious society where everyone wants to blame someone else for their own stupidity. I would think that when you are paying the owner of a parking lot for the right to park your vehicle, you more or less pay for the “rent” of that particular space for your car for a specified time. There is no mention of protecting or “guarding” your vehicle during the time period. Your reference to signage reinforces that sentiment. When you park your car at a meter on a public street you do not expect the city to be held responsible for the well being of it’s contents. Then why would one expect a private lot be held responsible unless they advertised as a secure ,free from theft parking lot?. I find it interesting that your insurance company went after the parking lot when I assume you were already covered for loss under your policy. This may well be the crux as to why insurance premiums are as high as they are. Did the parking lot owner’s insurance company also choose not to go to court and rather pay out your loss? I suspect (don’t know) that this may well be the case, as are the law suits against OFSC. If this is indeed the case ,that individual sledder’s who had accidents insurance companies are taking on OFSC to recover their losses then I believe the insurance model in Ontario is broken. We all carry our own insurance on our sleds, we all have the choice to buy more in depth coverage if we choose. The legalities of “Use at Your Own Risk” signage as well as language on trail pass waivers will only be determined in a court of law. I realise costs of doing so are insurmountable, but to continue on the path we are on are equally so. Perhaps we do need some government legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderman Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I can all but guarntee the OFSC are self insured to a fairly large degree, I don't know what that number is, but maybe somebody could post it, or if not, I understand, but on the flip side of that, maybe if more was understood by the idiots who think they're suing the "insurance company", some of this would stop, and we'd stop cutting our own throats. I know of several very large outfits who have self-retentions of $1 million dollars. To those who don't understand, that means every dollar up the first $1mil, is absorbed by them, not the insurer. The insurer is excess coverage above and beyond that. If i'm wrong, and their retention, or deductible is very low, than the premiums will be much higher for the OFSC. It's a risk vs dollar equation that they must make, usually done through sound Risk Management. For arguments sake, if the OFSC have a large retention, and they are being put on Notice for claims, I would like to know who is dealing with these issues? Is every single Notice going directly to counsel for handling? is the OFSC spending copious amounts of money on legal bills to handle matters that could be done by other sources, for far less and in an effort to keep matters out of court? I'm curious, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02Sled Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I would think that when you are paying the owner of a parking lot for the right to park your vehicle, you more or less pay for the “rent” of that particular space for your car for a specified time. There is no mention of protecting or “guarding” your vehicle during the time period. Your reference to signage reinforces that sentiment. When you park your car at a meter on a public street you do not expect the city to be held responsible for the well being of it’s contents. Then why would one expect a private lot be held responsible unless they advertised as a secure ,free from theft parking lot?. I find it interesting that your insurance company went after the parking lot when I assume you were already covered for loss under your policy. This may well be the crux as to why insurance premiums are as high as they are. Did the parking lot owner’s insurance company also choose not to go to court and rather pay out your loss? I suspect (don’t know) that this may well be the case, as are the law suits against OFSC. If this is indeed the case ,that individual sledder’s who had accidents insurance companies are taking on OFSC to recover their losses then I believe the insurance model in Ontario is broken. We all carry our own insurance on our sleds, we all have the choice to buy more in depth coverage if we choose. The legalities of “Use at Your Own Risk” signage as well as language on trail pass waivers will only be determined in a court of law. I realise costs of doing so are insurmountable, but to continue on the path we are on are equally so. Perhaps we do need some government legislation. I agree. I have said it before. That you shouldn't be able to sue for damages due to your own stupidity. The only porblem is that if they made a law that says... if you're stupid and cause your own injury that just creates an additional court challenge. Now you go to a judge to determine if your injuries were a result of your own stupidity. If the result is you weren't stupid then you go back to court to sue for your injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedtoSkidoo Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I can all but guarntee the OFSC are self insured to a fairly large degree, I don't know what that number is, but maybe somebody could post it, or if not, I understand, but on the flip side of that, maybe if more was understood by the idiots who think they're suing the "insurance company", some of this would stop, and we'd stop cutting our own throats. I know of several very large outfits who have self-retentions of $1 million dollars. To those who don't understand, that means every dollar up the first $1mil, is absorbed by them, not the insurer. The insurer is excess coverage above and beyond that. If i'm wrong, and their retention, or deductible is very low, than the premiums will be much higher for the OFSC. It's a risk vs dollar equation that they must make, usually done through sound Risk Management. For arguments sake, if the OFSC have a large retention, and they are being put on Notice for claims, I would like to know who is dealing with these issues? Is every single Notice going directly to counsel for handling? is the OFSC spending copious amounts of money on legal bills to handle matters that could be done by other sources, for far less and in an effort to keep matters out of court? I'm curious, Become a club member and find out! Maybe you could help! On a side note your lucky your going up. Let me know how it goes. Damn Hockey and Golf again this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mossy Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Just a thought, what if it was possible to sell a permit and you become a "tempoary landowner" ? Would this not clear up many legalities? As a landowner your insurance would cover you in case of an injury but would eliminate frivolous lawsuits. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildbill Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I can all but guarntee the OFSC are self insured to a fairly large degree, I don't know what that number is, but maybe somebody could post it, or if not, I understand, but on the flip side of that, maybe if more was understood by the idiots who think they're suing the "insurance company", some of this would stop, and we'd stop cutting our own throats. I know of several very large outfits who have self-retentions of $1 million dollars. To those who don't understand, that means every dollar up the first $1mil, is absorbed by them, not the insurer. The insurer is excess coverage above and beyond that. If i'm wrong, and their retention, or deductible is very low, than the premiums will be much higher for the OFSC. It's a risk vs dollar equation that they must make, usually done through sound Risk Management. For arguments sake, if the OFSC have a large retention, and they are being put on Notice for claims, I would like to know who is dealing with these issues? Is every single Notice going directly to counsel for handling? is the OFSC spending copious amounts of money on legal bills to handle matters that could be done by other sources, for far less and in an effort to keep matters out of court? I'm curious, Yes we are self insured for the first amount and the OFSC is taking a very proactive aproach at handling the claims even investigating and fact collecting immediatly upon notice of an accident. This has both prevented and won lawsuits. In the past the OFSC was known as a soft target for lawyers this not so much any more as the defenses are getting better by the day. If you noticed the red entry sign has even been enlarged and reworded recently. Personally I like the idea that it basically tells you "you might die don't be stupid" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledjunk Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Just a thought, what if it was possible to sell a permit and you become a "tempoary landowner" ? Would this not clear up many legalities? As a landowner your insurance would cover you in case of an injury but would eliminate frivolous lawsuits. Just a thought. I am not sure I understand, Mossy. Are you saying that each permit buyer becomes a 'temporary landowner' for the property they are on? Wouldn't you have to then have different insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Classic Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I agree. I have said it before. That you shouldn't be able to sue for damages due to your own stupidity. The only porblem is that if they made a law that says... if you're stupid and cause your own injury that just creates an additional court challenge. Now you go to a judge to determine if your injuries were a result of your own stupidity. If the result is you weren't stupid then you go back to court to sue for your injuries. Yiu gotta remember what a judge was before he was a judge. He isn't going to p--- in his buddys corn flakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.