The Bad Drivers of Ontario Thread | Page 242 | GTAMotorcycle.com

The Bad Drivers of Ontario Thread

A lot of the hurt for the owner will be based on "was the vehicle taken with permission?" The answer to that initial question may have a big impact on liability... Buddy went through this decades ago, when asked by the police, he didn't want to be a "bad guy" to the "friend" that rammed his truck into someone (that just took the keys at a party and went for a ride) so he gave the wrong answer (basically said yes they had permission). Basically bankruptcy was the end result.
 
Theoretically, using the car during a criminal act (dui and dangerous charges laid but not yet convicted) is enough to get insurance company out of paying. Every policy I have seen has that clause. So now car owner has to sue their "friend" to replace/repair the car. Try to get that settled asap before the hurt/dead people get lawsuits going and there is no money left.
I could survive replacing a car but once the victims get into the act they will be naming anyone even remotely involved. Kiss the house and RRSPs goodbye. Car insurance won't be fun for the next while.

If you knowingly lent the vehicle, take up yoga so you can learn to kiss your A** goodbye. If it was taken without your permission and you lay charges of theft does it get you off the liability?
 
I could survive replacing a car but once the victims get into the act they will be naming anyone even remotely involved. Kiss the house and RRSPs goodbye. Car insurance won't be fun for the next while.

If you knowingly lent the vehicle, take up yoga so you can learn to kiss your A** goodbye. If it was taken without your permission and you lay charges of theft does it get you off the liability?
If I knowingly lent it but didn't know about your license status (or propensity for dui) am I still liable? I don't know.

If I can get them charged with theft does that save me from liability? I don't know. I know in the states there have been cases where people sued manufacturers (sub-companies of them anyway) as they were the legal owner of leased vehicle even though they obviously had no say in day to day usage. Sue everyone and let the courts sort it out. Even if you can get out of the suit without writing a cheque to the other side, there is a lot of money that went to lawyers before you get there. Even if you win, you lose.
 
Last edited:
If I knowingly lent it but didn't know about your license status (or propensity for dui) am I still liable? I don't know.

If I can get them charged with theft does that save me from liability? I don't know. I know in the states there have been cases where people sued manufacturers (sub-companies of them anyway) as they were the legal owner of the vehicle even though they obviously had no say in day to day usage. Sue everyone and let the courts sort it out. Even if you can get out of the suit without writing a cheque to the other side, there is a lot of money that went to lawyers before you get there. Even if you win, you lose.
If charges were downgraded to careless it isn't a criminal charge and there is more hope for the victims getting compensation. Less is more.

However in this case the victims were in insured cars (Supposedly) and even as passengers there should be some compensation.
 
I see lots of these here and am baffled as to how they happen.
Is this why all the 400 series highways around Toronto have those large concrete walls?
 
I see lots of these here and am baffled as to how they happen.
Is this why all the 400 series highways around Toronto have those large concrete walls?
Pre-Covid I would see one of those, on the 410, maybe once every two weeks. It would usually be between Courtney Park and the 401. Since I was generally on the road before 5:00am I just figured it was idiots coming home after a night out drinking and who were completely plastered.
 
I see lots of these here and am baffled as to how they happen.
Is this why all the 400 series highways around Toronto have those large concrete walls?
At least two in the last week on the 400 at the marsh. Clear, dry days. Road is straight and flat. Boom, multiple vehicle collision with rollovers. Highway closed for the rest of the day.
 
At least two in the last week on the 400 at the marsh. Clear, dry days. Road is straight and flat. Boom, multiple vehicle collision with rollovers. Highway closed for the rest of the day.
Road is straight but ******** weave in and out of lanes like they are on racetracks going through chicanes. The amount of times I've watched people from a fair way back weaving through traffic at insane speeds is crazy. Putting everyone's life in danger for what? Getting somewhere 5mins faster? Never cop around when you need one.
 
Road is straight but ******** weave in and out of lanes like they are on racetracks going through chicanes. The amount of times I've watched people from a fair way back weaving through traffic at insane speeds is crazy. Putting everyone's life in danger for what? Getting somewhere 5mins faster? Never cop around when you need one.
Many days when a complaint is called in on 400 in barrie, the closest highway opp is south of vaughan and barrie pd tries to respond.
 
I see lots of these here and am baffled as to how they happen.
Is this why all the 400 series highways around Toronto have those large concrete walls?
That type of rollover happened to me and my buddy (he was driving) 24 years ago on the 401 just outside of Cobourg before they put up the concrete dividers. He wasn't drinking, just tired and fell asleep and basically woke up as the car was going down the ditch. Car did an almost complete 360 barrel roll.
 
I think we had this before but cant be bothered searching for original post. Charges laid today

Ctv news reporter covering a crash is standing on a closed road when she gets mowed down by a driver that ignored the signs (and the person standing in the road). 92 yo charged with careless. Sounds like it's time to hang up the keys. Imo Prosecution should offer to drop the charges if they hand in their license. Easy and clean with the desired outcome.

 
I think we had this before but cant be bothered searching for original post. Charges laid today

Ctv news reporter covering a crash is standing on a closed road when she gets mowed down by a driver that ignored the signs (and the person standing in the road). 92 yo charged with careless. Sounds like it's time to hang up the keys. Imo Prosecution should offer to drop the charges if they hand in their license. Easy and clean with the desired outcome.

I'd have to see the signage and video, before making a judgment. Too many times I've seen inadequate resources used for what they're doing. From the still picture shown, there's a flipped truck, people wandering in the middle of the road and nothing or no one indicating a closure.
 
I'd have to see the signage and video, before making a judgment. Too many times I've seen inadequate resources used for what they're doing. From the still picture shown, there's a flipped truck, people wandering in the middle of the road and nothing or no one indicating a closure.
Some road closure signs are a joke. Where exactly is the road closed? Before or after your destination?

Hitting a person is a different matter. You don't run over people, even if they're not supposed to be there.
 
Some road closure signs are a joke. Where exactly is the road closed? Before or after your destination?

Hitting a person is a different matter. You don't run over people, even if they're not supposed to be there.
Unfortunately people aren't pylons, they move. Reporters are wired up with earphones, so they can't hear you, and they get into their own little world when reporting. I'd still want to see the evidence. If someone ran out from behind a large tv van, into your path without looking, and you had a fraction of a a second to stop, you're not going to be able to. At this point it depends somewhat on how good a lawyer she can afford/get.
 
People regularly disregard road signs, that they find inconvenient. There is currently a no left turn sign for the Yonge Street southbound, at Adelaide, due to constriction. It is just to the right, as you approach the intersection, and is far more visible than most downtown street signs due to its placement. EVERY DAY I, and dozens of other drivers, are delayed by multiple entitled drivers who feel that this sign does not apply to them. It can get so bad that traffic is backed up through Shuter, as a result.
 
Can you make a u turn through a no left sign in Ontario?
no-u-turn-left-sign-44573870.jpg
 
I dont know where this one lies. Leaning towards a driving issue. 60 yo smokes a horse (one of 30 loose) at 3am and gets ejected and dies. Now family is suing for 3m for loss of income and companionship. He was a 60 yo truck driver, how much more income would he have made? Not a clean case for either side. Seeks like an attempt at a financial win in the face of a personal tragedy.

 
I dont know where this one lies. Leaning towards a driving issue. 60 yo smokes a horse (one of 30 loose) at 3am and gets ejected and dies. Now family is suing for 3m for loss of income and companionship. He was a 60 yo truck driver, how much more income would he have made? Not a clean case for either side. Seeks like an attempt at a financial win in the face of a personal tragedy.

Actually I think it will be pretty cut and dried. I'm having difficulty finding the specific regulations, however, this lawyer specializes in equine law and states that it's strict liability for the owner something like a car accident occurs as a result of escaped animals.

 
I dont know where this one lies. Leaning towards a driving issue. 60 yo smokes a horse (one of 30 loose) at 3am and gets ejected and dies. Now family is suing for 3m for loss of income and companionship. He was a 60 yo truck driver, how much more income would he have made? Not a clean case for either side. Seeks like an attempt at a financial win in the face of a personal tragedy.

Weird if you got ejected while wearing a seat belt. I guess the horse owner won't sue for its loss.
 
Actually I think it will be pretty cut and dried. I'm having difficulty finding the specific regulations, however, this lawyer specializes in equine law and states that it's strict liability for the owner something like a car accident occurs as a result of escaped animals.

Liability seems reasonable (although I am surprised that it is strict liability). $3M seems like a grossly inflated number because the horse owner has high net worth. I am thinking six figures and then split between the horse owner and driver as the driver seems to have made a least a few mistakes contributing to their situation (likely outdriving headlights and no seatbelt but obviously I am not sure about either of these). By the time the lawyer is paid, I wouldn't be surprised if the family got five figures instead of the seven they are hoping for.
 

Back
Top Bottom