Woman awarded $12 Million for Winter Accident

[Boges]

http://www.northernlife.ca/news/localNews/2015/12/10-accident-lawsuit-sudbury.aspx

So apparently she was the only one involved in an accident that day. As far as I'm aware, for insurance purposes, weather is never an excuse for an accident. You're always responsible to drive for the conditions.

5 cm is not a lot of snow even falling over 4 hours.

Towns and Cities pay to clear snow to help keep the traffic moving and help with public safety but to make them responsible, should a driver not drive for the conditions is a horrible precedent to be set.

I hope the ruling is overturned.

http://www.northernlife.ca/news/localNews/2015/12/10-accident-lawsuit-sudbury.aspx

Greater Sudbury is planning to appeal a $12-million damage award following a lengthy lawsuit that dates back to the former Regional Municipality of Sudbury.

The suit is related to an incident in November 2000, when a then 20-year-old woman was driving her car on Regional Road 35, heading south. She lost control, crossed the centre lane and collided head on with a school bus.

The woman received devastating, life-changing injuries, according to court's decision in the case. The victim's family sued, arguing the city was negligent in its duty to perform winter maintenance in accordance to its own standards.

It was cold the morning of the accident, with the temperature hovering around the -11.6 C mark and north winds blowing at 25 kilometres an hour. The early forecast had called for light snow, but it had changed to call for heavier amounts, with five centimetres falling between 7 and 11 a.m. Most witnesses to the accident described the road as “snow covered and slippery,” the transcript said.

So apparently she was the only one involved in an accident that day. As far as I'm aware, for insurance purposes, weather is never an excuse for an accident. You're always responsible to drive for the conditions.

5 cm is not a lot of snow even falling over 4 hours.

Towns and Cities pay to clear snow to help keep the traffic moving and help with public safety but to make them responsible, should a driver not drive for the conditions is a horrible precedent to be set.

I hope the ruling is overturned.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Boges

[The_Squid]

That does seem odd that a municipality is responsible for making a road completely safe for travel by car.

I could understand, perhaps, if the city left a big pile of icy snow in the road and she hit it, or something like that... But not clearing a road with 5cm on it?

I drove to NT in the winter last year. Conditions were shit! lots of snow on the roads everywhere, in or out of town.... the Coquihalla closed down shortly after we were on it.... Jasper had over a foot of snow on the roads when we finally got there... Even driving carefully, an accident could have happened... If I crashed, I could have sued Jasper for negligence?

It just doesn't make any sense.

[The_Squid]

Here is the actual decision if anyone would like to read it:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc7071/2015onsc7071.html

Here is the main conclusion of the judge:

[105] The Defendant failed to meet its maintenance quality standards when the road, in a winter storm event, was left without maintenance activity for over three hours. That lack of maintenance activity resulted in snow-packed and slippery road conditions. That those conditions could result ought to have been known by the employees of the Defendant. The winter road maintenance of the Defendant fell short of reasonable because of the failure to assign a spare spreader to plow and salt the road, or to require that Mr. Marynuk drop salt when he passed through the area of the accident approximately one hour prior to the accident. Had either of these actions been taken the road would not have been in the treacherous condition it was when the accident occurred and it is likely that the accident would not have occurred at all.

Edited December 15, 2015 by The_Squid

[H10]

What, we pay taxes to a government who promises to maintain roads. Damn right you should be able to sue a negligent government who makes no attempt to fulfill their legal obligation to have drive-able roads. I remember many times in Toronto days where no snow trucks would clean the streets. These people are paid by the city, the city has a responsibility to fulfill its obligations, if the government has no obligations then we need to abolish all tax.

[Guest]

I don't think it's possible to maintain roads, in Canada, in Winter, such that they are never dangerous at all. I agree with the OP that one is always responsible to drive for the conditions.

Unless it could be shown that the Municipality was grossly negligent, which the article seems to indicate was not the case.

[TimG]

Unless it could be shown that the Municipality was grossly negligent, which the article seems to indicate was not the case.

I fail to see why this qualifies as 'grossly negligent':

The Defendant failed to meet its maintenance quality standards when the road, in a winter storm event, was left without maintenance activity for over three hours.

Is the court really saying that when it starts snowing a city has less than 3 hours to plough every street in the city? That is insane. Edited December 16, 2015 by TimG

[Guest]

I fail to see why this qualifies as 'grossly negligent':

Me too. That's why I said it was not the case

[Topaz]

Snow if one thing but ICE is another, which is more dangerous to drive on. A while back our area had a freezing rain storm and a father and son were killed because the municipality didn't put down salt or try to make it somewhat safe. If towns and cities aren't going to be responsible for the roads, the companies should be forced to let workers off with pay, so they can get home before the conditions get worse. School buses won't run in bad weather why should workers?

[Boges]

Snow if one thing but ICE is another, which is more dangerous to drive on. A while back our area had a freezing rain storm and a father and son were killed because the municipality didn't put down salt or try to make it somewhat safe. If towns and cities aren't going to be responsible for the roads, the companies should be forced to let workers off with pay, so they can get home before the conditions get worse. School buses won't run in bad weather why should workers?

If other people got into accidents that may have been cause for a class action lawsuit. But not this one woman. Everyone else seemed to manage.

The idea of getting to work no matter what is always a sticky issue. There's no way you can make a private business give someone a snow day. What about first responders or people that provide electricity and utilities? Employers should use common sense in these instances, often the roads aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be.

[Topaz]

If other people got into accidents that may have been cause for a class action lawsuit. But not this one woman. Everyone else seemed to manage.

The idea of getting to work no matter what is always a sticky issue. There's no way you can make a private business give someone a snow day. What about first responders or people that provide electricity and utilities? Employers should use common sense in these instances, often the roads aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be.

Yeah, but if its too dangerous for school bus drivers to drive, then no one should be on the road

[Boges]

Yeah, but if its too dangerous for school bus drivers to drive, then no one should be on the road

Perhaps. Good luck trying to implement that though.

In this instance, I don't believe schools were closed however.

[The_Squid]

The result of this case will cause cities to not make standards... if they are negligent because they couldn't maintain their own standards, to protect themselves from lawsuits, they just won't have them... or make them much more lax.

[cybercoma]

I fail to see why this qualifies as 'grossly negligent': Is the court really saying that when it starts snowing a city has less than 3 hours to plough every street in the city? That is insane.

why is that insane? Plots put down salt and clear the streets during storms all the time around here. Are you implying that they should just wait hours for the snow to stop falling before they do anything?

[cybercoma]

The result of this case will cause cities to not make standards... if they are negligent because they couldn't maintain their own standards, to protect themselves from lawsuits, they just won't have them... or make them much more lax.

the standard will become "reasonable expectation of safety" and the courts will the define reasonable. In this case a plow that was out didn't put down salt or sand when it could have. That's a reasonable expectation in that weather. Therefore, the town is negligent regardless. Edited December 17, 2015 by cybercoma

[TimG]

why is that insane? Plots put down salt and clear the streets during storms all the time around here. Are you implying that they should just wait hours for the snow to stop falling before they do anything?

No I am saying the requirement to complete every street in the city within 3 hours of a storm starting is ridiculous.

[The_Squid]

No I am saying the requirement to complete every street in the city within 3 hours of a storm starting is ridiculous.

The city set that standard themselves....

[Wilber]

The city set that standard themselves....

A standard is not a law, it is a target.

[The_Squid]

A standard is not a law, it is a target.

I never said it was the law. I said the city set the 2 1/2 hr (or whatever it was) standard themselves.

[Wilber]

I never said it was the law. I said the city set the 2 1/2 hr (or whatever it was) standard themselves.

So what? As you say, it was a self imposed standard. Should they sue themselves for missing it?

[The_Squid]

So what? As you say, it was a self imposed standard. Should they sue themselves for missing it?

What the hell are you talking about?

[Wilber]

What the hell are you talking about?

It was a self imposed standard. What you can expect if this stands, is that cities will remove all such targets for fear of being sued.

[The_Squid]

The result of this case will cause cities to not make standards... if they are negligent because they couldn't maintain their own standards, to protect themselves from lawsuits, they just won't have them... or make them much more lax.

It was a self imposed standard. What you can expect if this stands, is that cities will remove all such targets for fear of being sued.

That's what I said yesterday...

[Wilber]

That's what I said yesterday...

Sorry, missed that bit. Seems we had a misunderstanding.