Interesting decision, with respect to liability

[Rob MacLennan]

This decision was posted on another board, by a criminal defence lawyer. I don't know if he's on this board using another name but as he's in the Ottawa area, it's unlikely. The upshot of the decision is that if you're being an idiot on public roads with your buddies and one of your friends crashes, you too may be help financially liable.

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2015/2015ONCA0071.htm

 

[meme]

You are judged by the company you keep.

 

[Brian P]

Translation from legalese into English?

From reading it, it looks like someone (unclear who) was uninsured.

 

[hedo2002]

The rider, (mahali), actually had insurance, but it was his insurer who was saying he may not be covered as they felt he violated one of the conditions of his policy, (racing or speed test), although the trial judge made no such finding in her decision. So basically his insurer, (RSA), is saying they haven't made a determination as of the end of trial if he is indeed covered.

The other revealing fact as pointed out is that even if you have 1 or even 2 million liability but are found to be in a race or speed test your liability limit is lowered to $200,000. Just another reason NOT be taping yourself doing something very stupid, (although if you crash at those speeds it will likely be your estate that will deal with it).

Translation from legalese into English?

From reading it, it looks like someone (unclear who) was uninsured.

 

[Brian P]

Rider was an idiot, lawyers and insurance companies were scumbags, is what I get out of all that.

 

[nfq]

Rider was an idiot, lawyers and insurance companies were scumbags, is what I get out of all that.

That sounds about right to me.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Rider was an idiot, lawyers and insurance companies were scumbags, is what I get out of all that.

Then you missed the part where if you aren't the guy who dies, you can still be found partially liable for damages. No impact. No contact. Twenty five percent liable.

 

[iFly55]

Unfortunately, there's a lot more that happened besides these two cyclists riding with someone who was involved in a fatal collision.

You get a much better picture while reading the previous court decision.The two other cyclist pleaded guilty to Careless & Dangerous Driving under the Criminal Code.

After the collision, they left their friend to die on the street. Both cyclist took off, and didn't bother staying. I wouldn't shed a tear for them being found 25% liable.

Mallory v. Werkmann et al, 2014 ONSC 971 (CanLII)

[9] On September 30, 2010 before the Honourable Justice H. I. Chisvin at Newmarket, the defendant Mr. Mihali pleaded guilty to careless driving contrary to s. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act. At the same time, Mr. Nemes pleaded guilty to dangerous driving under the Act.​

[30] I find that the three cyclists were engaged in a joint venture to participate in activity that involved driving considerably in excess of the speed limit and breaking other rules of the road. They encouraged and incited one another to do so. Immediately before the collision Mr. Mihali’s action in pulling away at a high rate of speed from Mr. Werkmann implicitly incited Mr. Werkmann to drive at the speed he did in order to follow to Mr. Mihali’s home to get warm. In failing to remain at the scene of the accident, as anyone would whose friend had just been killed, the two cyclists left. I find that they did that because they were conscious of having been, in part, to blame for what had happened.​

 

[GreyGhost]

Unfortunately, there's a lot more that happened besides these two cyclists riding with someone who was involved in a fatal collision.

You get a much better picture while reading the previous court decision.The two other cyclist pleaded guilty to Careless & Dangerous Driving under the Criminal Code.

After the collision, they left their friend to die on the street. Both cyclist took off, and didn't bother staying. I wouldn't shed a tear for them being found 25% liable.

Mallory v. Werkmann et al, 2014 ONSC 971 (CanLII)

[9] On September 30, 2010 before the Honourable Justice H. I. Chisvin at Newmarket, the defendant Mr. Mihali pleaded guilty to careless driving contrary to s. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act. At the same time, Mr. Nemes pleaded guilty to dangerous driving under the Act.​

[30] I find that the three cyclists were engaged in a joint venture to participate in activity that involved driving considerably in excess of the speed limit and breaking other rules of the road. They encouraged and incited one another to do so. Immediately before the collision Mr. Mihali’s action in pulling away at a high rate of speed from Mr. Werkmann implicitly incited Mr. Werkmann to drive at the speed he did in order to follow to Mr. Mihali’s home to get warm. In failing to remain at the scene of the accident, as anyone would whose friend had just been killed, the two cyclists left. I find that they did that because they were conscious of having been, in part, to blame for what had happened.​

Wow, so much win. So they were riding at 200+ km/h, saw their buddy get into a horrible crash, ran and then kept the video incriminating them in the whole thing? People amaze me.

 

[iFly55]

The other two deplorable sub-beings may have also had cameras, and the first thing they probably did was destroy the memory cards.

Unfortunately for them, the friend they left to die did have a camera... and as a result, it helped in identifying the other two.

More importantly, it appears there were a lot of witnesses to the accident.

[29] Immediately after the collision when Mr. Nemes noticed that Mr. Werkmann had not kept up, he got Mr. Mihali to pull over and they went back to investigate. When they saw what had happened, Mr. Mihali denied to Ms. Hancock that Mr. Werkmann was his friend and he left. I accept Ms. Hancock’s evidence, corroborated by Mr. Juknewich, but denied by Mr. Mihali, that they left before the police and ambulance arrived.​

 

[nobbie48]

Interesting but even more so if I understood the legalese. Also leaving the scene = admission of guilt.

I didn't know RSA insured bikes. I get good car rates from them.

 

[griff2]

Unfortunately, there's a lot more that happened besides these two cyclists riding with someone who was involved in a fatal collision.

You get a much better picture while reading the previous court decision.The two other cyclist pleaded guilty to Careless & Dangerous Driving under the Criminal Code.

After the collision, they left their friend to die on the street. Both cyclist took off, and didn't bother staying. I wouldn't shed a tear for them being found 25% liable.

Reading that judgement, there is plenty in there to consider before taking part in the next "spirited" group ride.

 

[TwistedKestrel]

This is that big incident with that RC51, isn't it. The one where the tank cam footage was being played on the news? Holy crap, that was a decade ago?

That is some dense reading. Maybe it's the hour or maybe a few slices are missing from the loaf, I don't know. I do not have the slightest clue what the whole "motion to remove counsel" is about. Is there any indication that the not-dead rider's insurance would be covering that 25%, even partly?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

This is that big incident with that RC51, isn't it. The one where the tank cam footage was being played on the news? Holy crap, that was a decade ago?

That is some dense reading. Maybe it's the hour or maybe a few slices are missing from the loaf, I don't know. I do not have the slightest clue what the whole "motion to remove counsel" is about. Is there any indication that the not-dead rider's insurance would be covering that 25%, even partly?

The 25% liability, that was assessed to the other riders, would either have to be covered by their insurance or by those riders personally. Imagine you are riding without insurance, are part of an incident like this, and are told that you are now responsible for 25% of a $444,850 judgment. How many years would it take you, to get your life back?

It is rather dense, but the "motion to remove counsel" goes to an issue of conflict of interest. At that point the interests of the surviving rider(s) and their insurers were at cross purpose.

 

[Baggsy]

If you have $1,000,000 coverage and the Insurance Company feels that the settlement will be over a million, then their lawyers won't care how much over it is. They could potentially sign off for $10,000,000 and leave you on the hook for 9 of it. So you don't want your insurance company's lawyer to be your lawyer. It could get interesting since the person had signed off before the lawyer was removed.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

If you have $1,000,000 coverage and the Insurance Company feels that the settlement will be over a million, then their lawyers won't care how much over it is. They could potentially sign off for $10,000,000 and leave you on the hook for 9 of it. So you don't want your insurance company's lawyer to be your lawyer. It could get interesting since the person had signed off before the lawyer was removed.

In this case it doesn't even matter that the insurance coverage was $1M, since there was a rider that effectively reduced the coverage to $200K if the insured was involved in a 'race or contest of speed' (I don't remember the exact phrasing).