Bill C45 Info

[porschev]

This was discussed at the last executive meeting, please find the links below for the case of Kolapore vs. Leone James – “A Silvertouch Community” that threatens or threatened to change volunteering in Canada pertaining to Bill C45.

It’s a little long winded but interesting read.


http://nsmb.com/shore_news/beardwinter_04_05.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://www.asilvertouch.com/forums/inde ... topic=1600" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[MotorEd]

Thanks for posting, very interesting read for sure.

[crazy2wheeler]

Is someone who's read it willing to post a "summary" of the important points and implications?

Thanks. D.

[MotorEd]

Is someone who's read it willing to post a "summary" of the important points and implications?

Thanks. D.

I could only read so much before I started to get pretty hot under the collar. Basically the guy hurt himself on a trail that was on crown land, now he is going to sue everyone and everything including the MTB club that was helping 'maintain' some of the trails. So you can see the similarity between what that club was doing and ours with all of our 'trail maintenance' and signs posted showing 'This Trail is Maintained By RMDRA'...so if some lawyer or other dude rides a trail our at Mclean that had a sign posted like the ones we put up it opens us up to being liable. The quote i liked best was this...

"the actions of the Ski Club could not create a responsibility becuase there is no "duty of care", similarily the idea that the safety of the forests and wilderness is the responsibility of the province is simply insane. "

Very true, and I think most would agree this is a lame-O way to get money because you crashed your bike. Unfortunately there are people like this in society that believe the world owes them something if they themselves make a mistake. AND more importantly this seems a great way or excuse for the anti-dirt bike community to shut down our riding areas

Looking at the rationale given by this guy in the court document, it would be like you or I walking down the street, tripping on a crack in the sidewalk, getting hurt because of it then pursuing a lawsuit against:
1) the city because they own the sidewalk
2) the property owner whoes business was infront of the sidewalk
3) the city worker that didnt fix the crack

Im not a lawyer so I have no idea if this guy has a case? Common sense would say no, but again who am i just using common sense yeah exactly. We as a club are in a very similar situation and probably need to figure out if we are indeed liable because we claim to maintain certain trails. Seems just a matter of time before someone tries to pull this out here.

[cedric]

In my experience...

Even if the guy has no case or a weak one, as a defendent you still need to hire a lawyer to represent you. This costs $200-$500/hr. Then you have to go through a bunch of bull, all the while your lawyer is racking up hours. Paying somebody $50 each time to send an email or make a phone call gets old. It seems to me that these lamo cases usually end up in a settlement, because it's cheaper to pay off the plaintiff than it is to employ a lawyer for a significant amount of time. In the end, the plaintiff settles for a LOT less than they were looking for, and as the defendent, it ends up costing you a bunch of money.

Apparently, if the case is utterly ridiculous, your lawyer can present it to a judge before any of the normal rituals happen and he may throw it out immediately, but the plaintiff's case would have to be very very weak and I'm not sure if this situation would qualify or not, it would depend on the judge.

[steve-o]

Thanks for the Coles Notes MotorEd! Come to think of it I did do a pretty wild endo on one of "our" trails and my ribs are still little sore, I may never be able to work again!

Seriously though, we as a club had ought to maybe just remove the signs all together. So long as SRD knows of all the collective efforts made on our behalf to maintain these areas we will hopefully benefit. When doing charity work one shouldn't really need acknowledgement anyway. If recognition is really required we should at least then change the wording of the signs which may imply our involvement in maintenance but makes it clear that we are not responsible for stupidity.

[Hendrix13]

Well I'm no lawyer..but in the second link above the judge states:
"74] Having read the description of the depression, where the plaintiff allegedly fell, its location, and the circumstances surrounding his alleged fall, I conclude that he has a "real chance of success" with his action."

Since it looked like this happened in 2006...I would think this is going to go to court.

What we really need is some clear guidelines from the SRD and Alberta Government about what laws are or should be in place to protect groups like our's from being sued by some scum-bag.

For example it looks like a simple sign like "Ride at your own risk" may have prevented this whole thing. Anyone in our group a lawyer that can give us some advice "pro bono"