Summons to witness letter | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Summons to witness letter

Rob MacLennan said:
I hadn't heard about that. Do you mean this case?

https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/...urance-lawsuit-for-leased-vehicle-1002003500/
Click to expand...

I was probably thinking about this one:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2009/04/22/car_crash_victim_gets_record_17_million.html

A jury's $17 million award has been upheld for a Toronto man who ran a red light and crashed into a delivery truck turning left into his path.

After a six-week trial, a jury had ruled in early 2007 that both Marcoccia and the truck driver had entered an intersection after the traffic lights on Rexdale Blvd. had turned from amber to red.

The jurors decided the truck driver was 61 per cent at fault because he was making a left turn, and Marcoccia was 39 per cent at fault because he sped up instead of stopping when he saw the amber light.

Insurers for the leasing and finance company would thus have to pay 61 per cent of the $17 million award, said Ralph. The insurer for the furniture store had already agreed to pay $1 million.

She said Ontario's law on the vicarious liability of vehicle owners has been changed so that leasing companies will no longer be exposed to such huge liability claims.
 
I sold my BMW earlier this year. Once the snow starts to fall, I will go to the dealer to look at any 2017s they have in stock.
With the various posts on this thread I stopped by Service Ontario to see if the ownership had changed. It hadn't.
The plate number is now listed as "unattached".
 
Rob MacLennan said:
As the legally registered owner of the vehicle the friend could be much more than be held *partially* responsible. If the "other charges" involved a collision or personal injury, that could go completely against the registered owner. It has happened before. it will happen again.
Click to expand...

I got some court viewpoint from an American lawyer but suspect the same might apply here at least to some degree.

Basically a court finds that the victim is due a pile of money and the victim gets it from all or any of the parties judged guilty of participating.

The victim gets taken care of.

If one guilty party doesn't have any coin the other guilty parties with deep pockets end up paying his share. How they get their money back has nothing to do with the case in hand.
 
nobbie48 said:
I got some court viewpoint from an American lawyer but suspect the same might apply here at least to some degree.

Basically a court finds that the victim is due a pile of money and the victim gets it from all or any of the parties judged guilty of participating.

The victim gets taken care of.

If one guilty party doesn't have any coin the other guilty parties with deep pockets end up paying his share. How they get their money back has nothing to do with the case in hand.
Click to expand...

The expression is "jointly and severally liable."
 
GreyGhost said:
Did you ever hear how the cases turned out where they added Ford Leasing to the claim? Technically Ford owned the car so they were included in the lawsuit (the vehicle itself was not a factor in the crash, they were just another deep pocket to name).
Click to expand...

A USA case:

An American friend was on his bike passing a semi in Arizona when it went out of control squashing him against the guardrail. He survived but was suing for millions because of potential future complications.

The truck was owned by Penski

It was leased to Company A

That hired a driver, Mr. B from driver service company C

and did contract work for Company D

The truck safety was by maintenance company E

The mechanic was Mr F

The crash was the result of a mechanical failure that should have been noticed by the mechanic.

All of the above were named in the lawsuit

As far as the driver is concerned, when the truck hit the guardrail the jolt bounced him against the roof of the truck breaking his neck making him a quadriplegic.

Messy isn't it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom