Dropped a bike, grass on the road, need advise

[griff2]

Forum Sponsor

Thanks everybody, but I'd appreciate an advice - what to do?

Should I call my insurance and let them take care of the bike repair, or
should I claim with the city? and do not call insurance? Or both?

Regardless of whether the City accepts the claim or not, insurance will most probably treat this as an at-fault collision, with the rationale being that you should adjust your riding to suit road conditions. They will point to the left lane as being where you should have gone.

 

[Face]

I've dealt with something like this. I suggest against making a claim with insurance company. They wont help you to sue the city. In fact, the claim will be single vehicle accident - your fault. Why? they will say you should be riding according to the road condition. Again, they wont help you.

This! I had a furnace fall off an open trailer, 1 car in front of me on the inside lane of the 400. Car in front pulled into the centre lane & the bouncing furnace hit my left front & lifted the car 2' in the air. Insurance company's position is that once an object touches the ground, it is your responsibility to avoid it. I had witnesses, but the only thing that caused the insurance company to not deem me at fault was that the driver with the trailer pulled over & took full responsibility with the cops. My company could therefore be reimbursed by his company and he took the premiums hit.

Insurance will say that grass on the road is your responsibility to drive/ride according to road conditions or avoid. You will be 100% at fault and they won't waste their time going after the City. Especially given the results of the Ombudsman's report quoted in another post.

 

[fine2ne]

i'd say it was negligence to leave it on the road...Definetely go see a lawyer. Fix it yourself out of pocket. You will get the money back at some point down the line by suing who ever is responsible for the grass cutting.

 

[hedo2002]

This would also likely fall under the same bylaw that says in the winter you cant empty your driveway onto the road. I know a contractor that was pushing snow from diveways across the road and piling it there he was charged, and found liable when a car hit the snow and crashed.

But this is negligence to have even shot that amount of grass onto the roadway they had an option of using mower with the discharge pointing onto the property itself, OR how about getting a bag to collect the clippings??

Insurance will still pay out even for at faut claims they cover the repairs, you can then sue the party responsible for the negligence, and they will cover the costs, (with a decent lawyer you will get enough to cover ANY premiuim increase)

 

[Jimsun]

Well to be fair you can argue that he was following a truck at a safe distance. However because he cannot see whats in front of the truck, he can only control what he can see behind it. As soon as he started seeing the grass, there was nothing he could do. Ie. Cannot change lane (maybe cars on the left lane). Cannot slow down dramatically (maybe a truck behind him that could not slow as fast as the bike or he could lose traction due to the slippery road + grass + bend), he cannot pull over to the right lane curb because the grass patches are thicker relative to that on the left tire track. He can maybe argue the best course of acrion at that point is to slowly let off the throttle, cruise and slowly brake until you come to a conplete stop. However, in between the process, he lost control

 

[kiwi]

This would also likely fall under the same bylaw that says in the winter you cant empty your driveway onto the road. I know a contractor that was pushing snow from diveways across the road and piling it there he was charged, and found liable when a car hit the snow and crashed.

But this is negligence to have even shot that amount of grass onto the roadway they had an option of using mower with the discharge pointing onto the property itself, OR how about getting a bag to collect the clippings??

Insurance will still pay out even for at faut claims they cover the repairs, you can then sue the party responsible for the negligence, and they will cover the costs, (with a decent lawyer you will get enough to cover ANY premiuim increase)

I'm very sure there is a bylaw which makes it an infraction for someone sweeping or blowing dirt onto the road. I cant remember the clause, but a few years ago when I was riding up Kennedy near SnowCity marine I was appalled to see a (contractor) working on their behalf of the business and blow sand and grit onto the road when I was riding by. I called up and left a message for the owner to contact me, which they didn't for a few days. because I never heard from them on day two, I lodged a complaint with the city.

OP, sorry to hear you are in this mess, but if it was the City, I know they do payout on certain things. I had a friend hit a pot hole and blow a tire. They were able to claim the repair from the city. TDSB could be fined by the city for an infraction after you lay a complaint to the city regarding their illegal dumping of grass on the roadway.

 

[Venom01]

Looks like the sidewalk after my neighbor mows his lawn.

 

[Face]

Well to be fair you can argue that he was following a truck at a safe distance. However because he cannot see whats in front of the truck, he can only control what he can see behind it. As soon as he started seeing the grass, there was nothing he could do. Ie. Cannot change lane (maybe cars on the left lane). Cannot slow down dramatically (maybe a truck behind him that could not slow as fast as the bike or he could lose traction due to the slippery road + grass + bend), he cannot pull over to the right lane curb because the grass patches are thicker relative to that on the left tire track. He can maybe argue the best course of acrion at that point is to slowly let off the throttle, cruise and slowly brake until you come to a conplete stop. However, in between the process, he lost control

All theory, and insurance companies have the rules the industry set up for themselves and only go by that.

 

[ZX600]

Looks like the sidewalk after my neighbor mows his lawn.

I bought a blower so i could blow the clippings back into my property, I guess I am an idiot.

 

[griff2]

Well to be fair you can argue that he was following a truck at a safe distance. However because he cannot see whats in front of the truck, he can only control what he can see behind it. As soon as he started seeing the grass, there was nothing he could do. Ie. Cannot change lane (maybe cars on the left lane). Cannot slow down dramatically (maybe a truck behind him that could not slow as fast as the bike or he could lose traction due to the slippery road + grass + bend), he cannot pull over to the right lane curb because the grass patches are thicker relative to that on the left tire track. He can maybe argue the best course of acrion at that point is to slowly let off the throttle, cruise and slowly brake until you come to a conplete stop. However, in between the process, he lost control

The counter argument to your scenario is that given the wet conditions AND given that a truck was in front limiting forward visibility, that a greater following distance was called for that would allow sufficient room to react to unexpected issues ahead. In other words, rider error or misjudgement.

 

[Elena P.]

some update - talked to a lawer, they confirm that i have to call insurance so insurance takes care of my bike, and lawers will take care of injuries.
They also said that most likely insurance will consider me as "at fault".
They can not sue the city or tdsb without involving insurance.

 

[gptt916]

some update - talked to a lawer, they confirm that i have to call insurance so insurance takes care of my bike, and lawers will take care of injuries.
They also said that most likely insurance will consider me as "at fault".
They can not sue the city or tdsb without involving insurance.

That's what I thought. You are responsible for reporting all accidents and collisions- regardless if you are making a claim or not, this should be on your policy/terms that you have signed. Insurance will consider you at fault, but as someone else have mentioned, a decent lawyer will get way more to compensate for any premium increase. Update us with how things go.

 

[kwtoxman]

The counter argument to your scenario is that given the wet conditions AND given that a truck was in front limiting forward visibility, that a greater following distance was called for that would allow sufficient room to react to unexpected issues ahead. In other words, rider error or misjudgement.

If that were the case then you should have no problem with the duck lady not being criminally negligent for stopping on the highway, which you railed against. Both are cases where riders came upon an unexpected issue. Obviously then those motorcyclists too did not drive at a following distance that was called for that would allow sufficient room to react to unexpected issues ahead. In other words, rider error or misjudgement.

You literally contradict your other posts.

some update - talked to a lawer, they confirm that i have to call insurance so insurance takes care of my bike, and lawers will take care of injuries.
They also said that most likely insurance will consider me as "at fault".
They can not sue the city or tdsb without involving insurance.

That's what I thought. You are responsible for reporting all accidents and collisions- regardless if you are making a claim or not, this should be on your policy/terms that you have signed. Insurance will consider you at fault, but as someone else have mentioned, a decent lawyer will get way more to compensate for any premium increase. Update us with how things go.

If you look at the fault determination rules for Ontario, the OP has a case to not be found at fault.

Fault is allocated to each driver based on which accident scenario most closely resembles the accident. If the accident is not described by any of the scenarios, then fault is allocated according to the ordinary rules of negligence law.

And guess what, the op's accident scenario does not resemble any of the over 40 described scenarios.

There can be an argument for duty of care under negligence in tort law. And if the TDSB employee said they normally blow back the grass as described by the OP, that also can demonstrate knowledge/ duty of care.

 

[gptt916]

If that were the case then you should have no problem with the duck lady not being criminally negligent for stopping on the highway, which you railed against. Both are cases where riders came upon an unexpected issue. Obviously then those motorcyclists too did not drive at a following distance that was called for that would allow sufficient room to react to unexpected issues ahead. In other words, rider error or misjudgement.

You literally contradict your other posts.





If you look at the fault determination rules for Ontario, the OP has a case to not be found at fault.



And guess what, the op's accident scenario does not resemble any of the over 40 described scenarios.

There can be an argument for duty of care under negligence in tort law. And if the TDSB employee said they normally blow back the grass as described by the OP, that also can demonstrate knowledge/ duty of care.

Sure, but I bet $2 his insurance company will still label him at fault

 

[fjbabe]

Glad you ok! Just one question if you saw all the grass why not move to the other lane until you pass the grass then move back over?

 

[kwtoxman]

Sure, but I bet $2 his insurance company will still label him at fault

I wouldn't doubt it and rather expect it. Insurance companies take the path of least resistance.

There are still ways to hold insurance companies accountable for their decisions, and have them reversed. There are appeal mechanisms, 3rd party arbitrators, etc. I did go that far and was successful once.
https://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/auto/brochures/Pages/brochure_claims.aspx

Glad you ok! Just one question if you saw all the grass why not move to the other lane until you pass the grass then move back over?

I can think a few reasons why the grass was not visible at a large distance and why moving to other lane was not a viable option, and it isn't hard to figure it out. If I were the OP I wouldn't be answering these types of question on the internet. Ymmv

 

[fjbabe]

I wouldn't doubt it and rather expect it. Insurance companies take the path of least resistance.

There are still ways to hold insurance companies accountable for their decisions, and have them reversed. There are appeal mechanisms, 3rd party arbitrators, etc. I did go that far and was successful once.
https://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/auto/brochures/Pages/brochure_claims.aspx



I can think a few reasons why the grass was not visible at a large distance and why moving to other lane was not a viable option, and it isn't hard to figure it out. If I were the OP I wouldn't be answering these types of question on the internet. Ymmv

Wasn't meaning any harm by the question... I totally get your point..

 

[hedo2002]

I am sure the OP lawyer has already told them what my lawyer told me after my accident last year NO more posts on ANY social media site or forums. Said it can damage future claims.

 

[griff2]

If that were the case then you should have no problem with the duck lady not being criminally negligent for stopping on the highway, which you railed against. Both are cases where riders came upon an unexpected issue. Obviously then those motorcyclists too did not drive at a following distance that was called for that would allow sufficient room to react to unexpected issues ahead. In other words, rider error or misjudgement.

Re duck woman, she was found criminally-negligent and I have no real problem with that, but you seem to think that crash fault is a zero sum game. Her being found negligent does not mean that the dead rider did not also contribute to the crash, or that the dead rider, had he survived, would not also have been found to some degree at fault for the crash.

You literally contradict your other posts.

Do I? The posts you quoted following this line are not mine.

And guess what, the op's accident scenario does not resemble any of the over 40 described scenarios.

The fault determination rules cover assignation of fault when two or more vehicles are involved in a collision. You are right that the op's accident doesn't fall into any of these. So why then are single vehicle collisions generally deemed to be at-fault crashes for insurance purposes whether charges are laid against the driver or rider, or not?

There can be an argument for duty of care under negligence in tort law. And if the TDSB employee said they normally blow back the grass as described by the OP, that also can demonstrate knowledge/ duty of care.

There may well be, but again this is not a zero sum game. TDSB could well be found negligent for their depositing grass on the roadway and might be held responsible for losses suffered in the crash if a civil action ensues. However, that is a matter between the rider and the TDSB, and is separate and apart from any collision fault determination between the rider and her insurance company.

 

[kwtoxman]

Your posts play devil's advocate and absolve TDSB of any potential negligence, yet you find duck lady criminally negligent. Contradiction.

It is referring to posts 41 and 50.

I already answered how faults are determined already in accidents through insurance, including single vehicle activities.

Fault is allocated to each driver based on which accident scenario most closely resembles the accident. If the accident is not described by any of the scenarios, then fault is allocated according to the ordinary rules of negligence law.

As such, fault determination between the rider and her insurance technically has to account for negligence considerations and law, which needs to include TDSB actions and duty of care in the accident scenario.

I'm not seeing much in the way of OP negligence for riding on a street in traffic per se as her posts here. The devil will be in the details that she hasn't and shouldn't share here. Again, with what has been shown and described by the OP, at this time there is a potential case for duty of care negligence WRT the grass clippings.

Forum Sponsor