"Ladies Only Trail" roller coaster jump ramp on Fromme Mtn.
(DNV- approved?)
(DNV- approved?)
Back in June 26 2012, I wrote about this very topic: http://www.northvancouverpolitics.com/2012/06/liability-for-dnv-recreational-trails.html
It is a topic that needs to be revisited. The following verdict may become a game-changer for the District of North Vancouver and other municipalities:
County liable for man's catastrophic biking incident in Bruce Peninsula, court rules
Colin Perkel, The Canadian PressPublished Tuesday, May 17, 2016
TORONTO -- A man rendered quadriplegic after a mountain biking accident won his battle Tuesday to hold the Ontario municipality that operated the adventure park fully liable for his injuries.
In its decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected an appeal by the municipal County of Bruce that it was not at fault, and that the victim, Stephen Campbell, was at least partly responsible for his catastrophic injuries.
"The reality is that several riders had been injured, including seriously injured, on the wooden obstacles in the trials area before (Campbell's) accident," the Appeal Court said.
"Had the municipality adequately monitored previous accidents and been aware of the number of accidents at the park -- and on Free Fall in particular -- actions would have been taken that would have prevented (Campbell's) injuries."
Read more: http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/county-liable-for-man-s-catastrophic-biking-incident-in-bruce-peninsula-court-rules-1.2905967
------------------------------
The District of North Vancouver also operates and funds a mountain biking "adventure park" of sorts on Fromme and portions of Seymour. They allow various "amusement park"-like structures to be built, along with putting various amenities in place for the mountain bikers.
There have been many injuries and even one death coming from those DNV-approved man-made MTB structures in the public forests. We know that mountain biking is already an inherently dangerous sport, without the added "liability" structures.
There have been many injuries and even one death coming from those DNV-approved man-made MTB structures in the public forests. We know that mountain biking is already an inherently dangerous sport, without the added "liability" structures.
Those man-made mountain biking structures bring into the picture much bigger liability issues, I believe.
The District of North Vancouver lacks the pertinent parks staff, rangers, etc. to oversee the building and day to day activities. It's still very much a wild west in the woods. What happens if an injured mountain biker should sue DNV. someday?
What will this Ontario court decision mean for BC municipalities, especially the District of North Vancouver? Only time will tell. Thoughts?
55 comments:
The irony of the risks on the North Shore is that Mark Wood, Program Manager for the North Shore Mountain Bike Association, recently suffered a catastrophic neck injury riding on NSMBA trails and is facing months of rehab. The NSMBA and DNV are remaining silent about the injury as Wood's legal counsel has advised he will likely sue both the NSMBA and the DNV for over $1 million due to "reckless disregard" by the DNV in maintaining the trails. Would DNV Councillor Mathew Bond, who reads and posts on this blog care to respond?
There was a presentation to DNV Council some time ago on public safety which included cliff jumping. I wonder if that activity might be covered by the court decision.
Why would Wood want to bite the hands that feed him?
Wood would not be biting anyone's hand. He suffered a catastrophic workplace injury on the job and on his employer's premises. He should be receiving a full salary on short term disability for several months, and then long term disability paid by the employer. Based on the extent of his injuries he will not be back on a mountain bike for some time, if ever. The question would be the dual liability of his employer who is ultimately responsible as employer and the land manager, the District of North Vancouver, with its deep pockets and reckless disregard for people using Fromme trails. Hopefully Wood is getting sound legal advice and not relying on anything he hears from either the NSMBA and/or certainly the District. And certainly no one in the riding community should be saying things like, "Hey do not do anything that would limit the use of the trails."
"The NSMBA and DNV are remaining silent about the injury as Wood's legal counsel has advised he will likely sue both the NSMBA and the DNV for over $1 million due to "reckless disregard" by the DNV in maintaining the trails"
That is some pretty specific privileged language... and who might you be? Either you are a privileged person and you shouldn't be on the blog spouting off, or you are full of crap and are filling in the blanks quite liberally.
Wow. Pretty strong claims for an Anon. (The pre-9:52 one)
You do realize that posting as "Anon" doesn't really prevent Those In Power from identifying you?
Anyhow, I'd like to expand on Mocreal's concerns by wondering how long it will be before the hikers on District trails, who seem to be getting lost or injured on a more or less daily basis, also start launching legal action against the District that allows them to head out unprepared, underskilled, and in a generally clueless manner.
The only solution that I can see is to hire Donald Trump to build a wall around the bottom of Mount Fromme to keep everyone out.
Well, except for bears. Bears can come in. As long as they sign a waiver.
It seems the concerns at issue are more about the kinds of structures the mountain bikers are building on Fromme, not lost hikers Barry.
Donald Trump build a wall? Hey, if we want something done lets get Justin in to push some guys around and elbow the women.
Mr. Rueger,
Those in power can put their mace and chain up their centrifugal orifice :-). The last person in power that identified me and took revenge continues to rest peacefully in a family plot.
Hikers get lost because the DNV fails to maintain trails, fails to post signage, does not have cell phone coverage, had no ranger program, does not have water stations etc etc. The trails are managed as if it was the 1950s, a function that most of the senior management at municipal hall and certainly all of council (save for MrBond) despite that every one of them use Ms. Clairol, have not been on a trail since the 1950s.
"The last person in power that identified me and took revenge continues to rest peacefully in a family plot."
Pride is a weakness.
Hikers get lost because they're unprepared. It has nothing to do with trail management.
Hikers indeed need to be prepared. However, if the land manager is aware that hikers are NOT prepared, then the land manager has a duty to manage or accommodate the lack of preparedness. It is difficult to deal with hikers who deviate off trails into the back country. It is easy to deal with hikers who do not carry enough water - build water stations :-)
So is hubris
Interesting how the comments have veered away from mountain bikers.
What about all those mountain bikers building too many trails and structures in the forest? A Scout troop got lost on Fromme Mtn a few years back because they accidentally followed a rogue trail cut by mountain bikers.
Regarding the topic question of the effect of an Ontario court ruling on BC courts.
The ruling of a BC court sets a precedent that is compelling for subsequent similar cases. A ruling from an Ontario court is viewed as "persuasive" and may have influence but to a lesser degree than a BC ruling.
I suppose that the big picture point of the post is that by permitting an activity a local government may attract some liability regarding the safety of the activity.
I would lean to yes, this is more likely than not.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld the Trial Judge's decision in Campbell v. Bruce (County), 2015 ONSC 230.
http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/493360/Civil+Law/Case+Alert+Campbell+v+Bruce+County+2016+ONCA+371
"The Court of Appeal's decision is a helpful reminder to municipalities of the onus on them as occupiers when providing members of the public with sporting and recreation venues."
Very good comment about compelling v persuasive.
However the recency of the Ontario decision and the fact that statutes of "The Occupiers Act" in both provinces are virtually identical give additional authority to the Ontario decision within BC.
At the very least municipal governments should be proactive.
It may be worth noting that it is impossible to eliminate all risk. Instead the goal is to manage risk in some reasonable (and hopefully predictable) fashion.
What the courts will usually look for is evidence that the entity being sued has taken reasonable steps to prevent reasonably foreseeable risks.
No-one, especially the Courts, would expect the District to eliminate all risks to all persons visiting any of their properties.
Those mountain bike structures being built in the forests are a sheer liability for the District. It just takes one person to sue, and the game is up! We are not talking about a few bridges over a creek.
So, no personal responsibility for the person who choses to ride these trails/structures? It's like blaming a municipality for tripping on a curb. Don't like risk? Stay indoors, but don't blame the municipality for your own choices. Nobody is forcing anyone to ride trails are hike back country. These are personal choices that sometimes go wrong. Particularly for those who are unprepared or lack the skills.
Assumption of risk and assignment of liability is not a "100%" v "0%" equation. Also read Herbert v. City of Brantford, 2010 ONSC in which the municipality was found 40% at fault. Personal choices can also go wrong because of the failure of a municipality to meet a duty to inform. For instance the approach to the teetor tooter on Powerline should have a large sign which reads, "In 2012 a highly skilled and experienced cyclist, riding alone and wearing all recommended safety equipment died here."
Read the ruling. The Municipality in Ontario is on the hook because: 1)It is a formal biking park set up by the Municipality 2) there was no signage about how difficult this particular feature was and 3) the track was so long that looking at it from the beginning would not give you a sense for how perilous it was and 4) due to the design there was no safe way out.
The courts did not say municipalities are always responsible for mountain biking on their land, if it is signed and there are safe routes out the courts would not have laid blame on the Municipality. It is certainly grounds for reviewing the DNV's policies, but if you add safe routes out and signage, challenging features, even with inherent danger, are acceptable.
Thanks legal folks for your interesting comments.
One must think that DNV has the foresight to consider the liability that they are attracting. They certainly took measures to install signage and rangers in Lynn Canyon. Hopefully they have received legal advice and are following it and minimizing exposure re mountain biking accordingly.
Even a Waiver Form is not worth the paper it is printed on!
"He went from a trailhead on Mount Fromme to a hospital bed last October and will never ride his cherished Kona full-suspension mountain bike again."
-----
Peter’s trailside tragedy is happening far too often, according to emergency room doctors with Vancouver Coastal Health, and they are sounding the alarm with the launch of a “Shred Safe” mountain bike campaign.
-----
Statistics compiled by Vancouver Coastal Health show Whistler leads the way with the volume of annual injuries. In 2014-15, 57 riders were hospitalized with significant injuries. But that is lower than in 2013-14, when there were 67 major injuries, and 71 the previous year.
**North Vancouver was next with 13 serious incidents in 2014-15, which is up from four in 2013-14.** Squamish had 10 in 2014-15, up from seven in 2013-14
Read more:Mountain bike risks focus of 'Shred Safe' campaign
Mocrael, now you're being disingenuous. You don't give a damned about rider safety. You're just using these numbers as another reason to be opposed to an activity you've always had a hard-on against. All you care about is getting them off your trails and out of your neighbourhood. Stop trying to act like you're concerned about rider safety.
Did you actually read the article? All of this is related to liability on the trails.
It takes only one person to sue DNV and/or NSMBA for injuries incurred on the mountain bike trails.
What a vile and defamatory attack on Mocreal. Must be a member of DNV Council
Actually, not a member of council. Not even a resident of the DNV. I'm in the CNV and hike the trails with my dogs on a daily basis. Never had a problem with mountain bikers. You'd probably be surprised at how few actually support Ms. Cravers' nonsense. If you want to be a member of her fan club, that's your business but don't presume that yours is the majority view. You want to change things to suit your agenda, run a slate (and win) in the next election.
CNV "hiker": Not nonsense, but reality! More support than you know. Why don't you address the serious issues at hand, and take your hate elsewhere? Lucky for you that you haven't encountered MTB conflicts on the trails. More than a few hikers have...
http://www.straight.com/life/706951/vancouver-coastal-health-reports-100-mountain-bikers-needed-major-emergency-surgery-last
"North Shore resident Monica Craver has often raised concerns about the safety of mounting (sic) biking.
In a recent tweet, she suggested that the District of North Vancouver might face liability claims in the future because of the state of one of its trails."
https://twitter.com/MECraver/status/7359220344599841
Hating the messenger doesn't change the facts. The "majority view" has been proven wrong on more than one occasion, you know.
Anonymous posters who go on full hate attack of persons are cowards.
Expressing a different opinion isn't hate. If you find a differing opinion from your own so hurtful, I think you need to grow a thicker skin, or get off discussion forums. Ms. Craver's hatred for wheeled trail users is well documented and if the majority shared her views, I think we'd see a very different District council. Typical NIMBYism disguised as concern for personal safety. Very transparent.
What if I told you several mountain bikers, locally, support my efforts. Tough to believe isn't it? They also get slammed/taunted by the extreme mountain bike "community" also for speaking out against some very questionable activities of the NSMBA, also.
It's not a NIMBY issue anymore. It may have started that way, but no more. It involves everyone's safety who use the trails -- not just mountain bikers. VCH is involved, trying to stop the MTB carnage. And, of course, I still think the kind of crazy mountain biking done on Fromme Mtn.is a fool's sport. I am not the only one who thinks that. Far from it. I just happen to be the most outspoken about it...
The environment has already been thoroughly thrashed by NSMBA "volunteerism", in any case. Now, I would just like to see some containment and proper management of this "wild west" sport, with a separation of bike and hike trails. After over a decade, it looks like these issues are taking a life of their own. I just hope we will see some common-sense solutions, soon.
One mountain biker recently wrote on what I have heard and seen for too many years:
"I agree with you 100%. I am a rider. I am always amazed at the arrogance of riders. On the road or on the trails. They get mad at everyone for not following the rules, but break them every chance they get..." -J.T. (link provided on request)
The rogue trail building and riding is still privately applauded by such entities as the NSMBA, but their public persona wags a disingenuous finger at the scofflaw antics. Mountain bikers have told me so... Take care.
Well then, stop whining about it here a few times a year and run for council. Let's see how much support you really have.
I don't care if somebody engages in high-risk activities. If you want to smoke, take drugs, over eat, drive a car or ride your bicycle recklessly whether in traffic or down a mountain and you only hurt yourself then be my guest - as long as you have private insurance to cover your care and you don't try to sue the public purse and I don't have to pay for your choices through my taxes.
However, if your personal choice negatively effects me then I am happy to condemn your choice all the way to support banning what it is you do. This means that if my taxes go up because you need to be hospitalized because you choose to smoke, take dope, become obese then I am quite happy to have your activity made illegal and difficult to engage in.
Drive a car or bike wildly and hurt yourself - I don't want to pay your medical bills and your therapy for life. Do the same thing and threaten me or my family then I am happy to curtail your fun through every means.
If you hurt yourself doing something that you fully know is dangerous and you sue the District and win then the public is paying for your choice. You take the risk you pay the consequences. I don't want to pay for your choice as I am not accountable for them. You are.
Short and simple. If you take full financial responsibility for your choices and indemnify me then go for it. If you think that someone else should end up on the hook for your actions then you are selfish and irresponsible and I oppose what you are doing.
Well it seems that Vancouver Coastal Health has indeed weighed in on the matter and appears to support Ms. Craver and Mocreal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzquyWwkw48&feature=youtu.be
I do not know the influence of these people but I doubt their alleged NIMBYISM is behind this Vancouver Coastal Health campaign.
Some recreational activities come with risk. But man made silliness on Fromme such as Bobsled, that absurd teeter-tooter on Powerline and Stairs of Despair are not normal, acceptable risks and should absolutely not be in an unsupervised public park, or any park for that matter.
As for running for Council, it took the entire provincial NDP machine working overtime to elect Hanson. Bond was handpicked by Walton and all but assured a Council seat. The simple fact is that if El Presidente for Life Ricardo Walton (the mountain biking mayor) does not want you on DNV Council you do not get elected. Bassam learned that his first run. Next time around, he puckered up and kissed for worship's ass until his nose turned brown. This is the same mayor that shouted down someone in council chambers who asked that nsmb.com not post photos of smoking guns pointing at the Canadian Prime Minister. He does not care one iota about public safety. If he did care, much more would be done at Quarry Rock, Lynn Canyon, on Fromme and kids would have safe routes to use to get to school instead of being mowed down by dump trucks and cement mixers going and coming from his Worship's prized phallic symbol towers being erected.
Well stated, Anons 9:44am and 3:35pm! :)
Well stated... sort of. If you start down the road of asking the public what they will assume risk for you will find that individually we are extremely risk averse and the public would want indemnification on everything from walking to work on an icy day to having a dog run off-leash in a public park. ;) Suggesting that we be fully protected from their costs sounds reasonable but in practice it leads to a big brother culture that limits an active lifestyle, quashes spontaneity, and casts a social pall on even marginal risk. Frankly I'd rather take steps to manage risk to ALARP levels (As Low As Reasonably Practicable), and be there to help the unfortunate souls that teach us about danger.
Mountain biking with its "need" for so many man made amusement park-like structures does not belong inside a non-managed public forest. Mountain bikers are effectively privatizing and commercializing a public forest by the proliferation of trails containing those stunt structures mountain bikers, but no one else, can use.
Those stunt structures belong inside a properly run Bike Park, like Whistler, and even the privately run Coast Gravity Bike Park in Sechelt.
Sorry Anon 12:35 but disagree. Walking down the street and entering an off-leash park are covered off without the Draconian stuff you are worrying about. Everybody walks down the street so it is not a choice of extraordinary risk and is covered by the public purse. Walking in a off-leash park is an assumed risk and if attacked by a dog then the dog owner is financially responsible.
Being personally responsible for your high-risk behaviour is the opposite of the nanny-state society that you are worried about. It would be a big step for our entitled folk to grow up and be accountable for their own behaviour and stop riding on the coat-tails of the majority that don't engage in high risk activity. I'd love to see it.
You're at greater risk of being seriously injured or killed by a car while walking or cycling. Automobiles are responsible for more injury and death each day. If you want to control risky behaviour, your attention is on the wrong culprits.
I guess I just see an important difference between taking responsibility for your actions and entirely indemnifying the public against a possible outcome of your actions.
"I don't care if somebody engages in high-risk activities. If you want to smoke, take drugs, over eat, drive a car or ride your bicycle recklessly whether in traffic or down a mountain and you only hurt yourself then be my guest - as long as you have private insurance to cover your care and you don't try to sue the public purse and I don't have to pay for your choices through my taxes." The problem is engaging in those activities doesn't always "only hurt yourself", and when it does hurt others, no amount of indemnification can deal with a pedestrian that has been struck by a reckless driver. Personal responsibility is no excuse to cast off reasonable safety measures.
Anon 8:17. I wrote, "...drive a car or ride your bicycle recklessly..." Over and over reckless bikers try to excuse their actions because there are reckless car drivers. We don't have to pick one or the other. Both are a danger.
Anon 10:22. Indemnifying the public is taking responsibility for you actions.
A person cannot take responsibility for their actions if they do not have full information about risks. Over the past several years there have a number of serious injuries, even deaths that have occurred on DNV mountain bike trails. In April of this year, Mark Wood, Program Manager for the NSMBA, broke his neck riding on Fromme. These events are newsworthy and are events that should be published on dnv.org and nsmba.ca. 13% of all mountain bike injuries attended to by Vancouver Coastal Health occur JUST on Fromme. Fromme represents far less than 1/100th of 1% of VCH's territory. But the NSMBA, the DNV and the North Shore News refuse to meet their duty to report on risk. Who knows why? A soul would perish at the thought of what the editor of the NSN and his worship do in the forest lol. The reality is that people do not know the risks they are facing.
Yes, mountain biking tends to be located on mountains... and on bikes.
There has been tons of media coverage over the years on injured hikers and bikers on the north shore mountains. A quick Google search for 'injured mountain biker north shore' will show you tons of stories from tons of outlets. They don't usually include the name of the injured person unless the injured person goes to the media. If the Coroner or RCMP feel they need to report on an extraordinary risk they will. Mountain bikers are well aware of the general risks associated with the sport, but the Municipality could do a better job of signing the difficulty of particular mountain biking features and where an extraordinary risk exists they should force NSMBA to redesign features with safe exits along the way.
What difference is there between an injured Fromme biker and a Whistler-Blackcomb skier who has just broken his back?
Both end up at Lions Gate and both have engaged in a sport known to have a higher risk of injury than a walk in the park.
I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that Whistler operations carry liability insurance against lawsuits brought by injured sports enthusiasts and that those operations' attention to reasonable safety is reflected in the insurance premiums.
Maybe DNV should try to buy liability insurance and let the insurance underwriter pronounce on the reasonableness of how it 'operates' Fromme Mountain.
At the very least, then, the injured riders will have somebody else besides the public to sue.
Whistler is the largest ski resort on the continent taking in 2 million visitors a year. The risk of death or a debilitating injury is less than 1 in 200,000 visitors and that includes avalanche risk. Exact numbers are not known for Fromme and Lynn Canyon but DNV estimates that there are 50,000 visitors per year. The risk of death or serious injury in the past year is 1 in 8,000 making Fromme and Lynn Canyon about 25 times more risky than Whistler. When there is dangerous weather at Whistler, the resort shuts down skiing operations. When there is dangerous weather on Fromme, there are no restrictions. And what is the DNV doing about that risk being 25 times greater. Absolutely NOTHING. In law it is called negligence or reckless disregard. And it starts right at the office of Mayor Richard Walton, the "the mountain biking mayor."
There is a huge difference in liability between Public Property and Private Property. It may not feel fair, but it is clearly how the courts have sided for decades. If the District is operating a set aside mountain biking park, then they are functioning like a private lease on public property and should have Private Liability.
Wow, this forum is entertaining!
FYI, that structure has an easier option to ride around as most structures do, if you choose to ride them you have obviously made the decision and should be accountable if you get injured.
Mark Woods unfortunate accident didn't happen on a DNV trail so not sure what all the misinformation on DNVs liability is. Hopefully he won't sue the NSMBA, but considering the type of person he is I wouldn't be surprised if he did.
The DNV has just shut down the mountain bike "park"at the south end of Inter River Park due to liability concerns. The DNV's insurers apparently turned a deaf ear to Richard Walton and Mathew Bond's plaintiff whining about how it was all safe and such.
The simple fact is that mountain biking is dangerous and that trails require supervision, proper maintenance and realistic assessments of dangers. The NSMBA;s approach of having a few beers and smoking a joint, all paid from the DNV treasury, while moving a few sticks and rocks here and there on trails is contributing to the reckless disregard for life shown by municipal hall.
Mountain biking should continue in the DNV but not managed by the idiots at the NSMBA who would break their necks before taking responsibility for trails or those two love birds Walton and Bond. Set up a proper commercial business, with trail fees, parking fees and rules. And get rid of those absurdities such as that teetor-totter on Pipeline.
Off road cycling is a beautiful sport. Please, please take the NSMBA, Walton and Bond out of the equation and treat the sport as a recreational activity not an exercise in laundering public funds.
Wow! All kinds of accusations there anon 10:13pm, got any proof to support them?
No. Just hot air again.
Lots of proof! Lots of hot air spewing from the mountain bikers' non-stop braggadocio...
Monica - you have had all your actions backfire. We are all laughing.
Post a Comment