KD5NRH

The parents were also named in the suit, though not identified in the article, and we have no way of knowing what assets they may have had; could have been anything from just barely enough to maintain homeowner's or renter's insurance that would apply in this situation, up to top 1%. As for also naming the girl in the suit, I don't know if Canada's laws would allow a civil judgment to remain in effect after she reaches adulthood, but that could also be a factor.

For this accident, yes; I wouldn't expect a ten year old to consider her behavior unreasonable or even particularly unsafe on a quiet residential street.
On the other hand, there are situations a ten year old of normal intelligence should recognize as unreasonably dangerous; for example, riding the wrong way in a marked lane of a busy street, causing someone to wreck while trying to avoid running over her. My 9 year old is fully capable of seeing that as an expected outcome of such behavior, so I'd say it would be reasonable to sue the parents at that point, though specifically naming the child as a defendant in a civil action would depend on some other factors.

njkayaker

???

The parents have the insurance policy. The parents likely have to be named in the suit. (I suspect it's the usual thing to do in any case.)

Whether or not we know what the assets are is irrelevant.

It only matters to the plaintiff and his lawyer.

And it's unlikely they would have wasted their time bring the suit if they thought there were no assets.

In any case, the notion that there was "possible fraud" based on something the plaintiff's lawyer said to a reporter is silly.

It's a normal thing to go after an insurance policy. Suggesting that doing that could be fraud is silly.

Pedestrians are supposed to move against traffic. If a pedestrian is passing another pedestrian, they would normally move to the right and pass on the right.

The cyclist was operating (more or less) like a pedestrian (moving against traffic and at slower-than-running speed).

njkayaker

It's not "anything goes" for the vehicle being passed.

Motor vehicles also have the duty not to move into the path of a passing vehicle. The vehicle being passed has the right of way in there current "lane" (they don't have the right of way to change "lanes").


The cyclist apparently moved right at the same time the runner was trying to pass.

In any case, it seems that the runner could have (and should have) passed at a much wider distance.

njkayaker

it applies to road users too.

adablduya

i agree that it's not "anything goes" for the "vehicle" being passed. but, it damn near is, though, excepting an almost negligent action by the leading vehicle (swerving into the next lane, for example).

in this case, there was no "lane-changing" taking place, so the rules of moving into an approaching object don't similarly apply. it was the responsibility of the runner to navigate safely. further, it does not appear as if he made his presence clearly known apart from the perception of his footsteps, i.e., "runner back". so, the result in court was correct, and in my opinion, regardless of the age of the cyclist.

njkayaker

No, there's nothing that indicates this as being certain. There is nothing that says it's allowed to move laterally into the path of a passing vehicle or person. It would not be an example of "careful driving".

The cyclist knew the runner was there (that's why she moved to the left). It's unknown why she apparently thought the runner who she knew was there a moment ago "disappeared". (An experienced/careful "driver" would have looked before moving right.)

This is exactly the claim made by the plaintiff.

Cyclist0108

I was standing flat-footed when my golden retriever puppies knocked me down and severely broke my anke; by far the worst injury I have ever had, requiring emergency surgery that day (Jan 1st, a holiday). After all was said and done, my medical insurance was trying to get me to name someone at fault, so that they could sue to recover expenses. Fortunately it wasn't my neighbor's dog or something like that, or they would have sued them for me on my behalf. I don't know how these things work in Canadia, but perhaps the jogger wasn't given the choice.

njkayaker

It seems the runner was only trying to recover the cost of medical treatment. It appears the runner brought the suit (that is, I think the story would have been presented differently if it was an insurance company bringing the suit).

Cyclist0108

That's what I thought at first, too (see post #7).

Then I got to thinking about this. I think the insurance company would sue under the name of the insured.

adablduya

whatever. the bottom line is the cyclist was responsible for not hitting anyone in front of her, and the jogger was responsible for not hitting the cyclist in front of him. there really is no gray area about this.

jon c. 

I hope that's the case. Otherwise, the jogger is a poor excuse for a human being. We expect that of insurance companies.

dh024

Yep, that's exactly the way it works here in Canada. IMO, the insurance industry are a bunch of thugs, with a huge budget to lobby the government to protect them.

KD5NRH

Therein lies the issue; they admitted if there hadn't been an insurance policy, they wouldn't have sued.

No assets or insurance, no point, unless you think they will have enough at some point, and you're willing to keep checking back from time to time to try and get your judgment enforced at that time.
Assets but no insurance, maybe. The family may be willing to fight hard to keep what they've got.
Assets and insurance, why would the insurance policy make a difference here, unless they think an insurer is more likely to pay without a fight?

IMO, they knew their case was squirrelly from the start, and hoped the insurance company would offer a settlement. At the initial court date, maybe they assumed the insurance company was trying to call their bluff, and were hoping for a last minute offer. Beyond that, it's possible they were concerned that their plan would be too obvious if they dropped it without a settlement once it was time for the judge to take over.

njkayaker

Who knows. In any case, you can't get blood from a stone.

This is a fairly common tactic. One may not like it but it's an (implicitly) allowed tactic. It's not "fraud".

Who knows! This is all speculation. Given that some people here have trouble keeping the reported facts straight, I don't see the point of speculation free from facts.

asmac

I have never heard of a Canadian government medicare system suing someone to recover the costs of providing treatment. I presume he was suing to cover the cost of uninsured services such as rehab or maybe for loss of income or loss of enjoyment or maybe just because he was mad or thought he could get some money. His medical treatment per se should have cost him nothing.