Teen on ATV survives close call with cable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodsman

For this you can check the C.C.C.
You do the research.

---

I did and it's not there, I guess you were wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B Wilson

With Bill 100 the occupiers liability act was amended. Anyone entering private property, in simple terms assumes all risk.

It it should eliminate lawsuits from anyone entering private land and hurting themselves.

Another good part of the bill, trespassing fines went from a maximum $2000 to now being $15000 maximum and the land owner has no limit to the amount of damage restitution where previously it was capped at $1000

---

I agree...in simple terms,but,and it's a big BUT, in no way shape or form does the Occupier's Liability Act amendments absolve property owners from allowing dangerous conditions to exist or deliberately creating conditions where bodily harm or death may occur to any trespasser. In that instance,the Criminal Code most certainly would apply. (Sect 219-221 Criminal negligence cause death or bodily harm)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I agree...in simple terms,but,and it's a big BUT, in no way shape or form does the Occupier's Liability Act amendments absolve property owners from allowing dangerous conditions to exist or deliberately creating conditions where bodily harm or death may occur to any trespasser. In that instance,the Criminal Code most certainly would apply. (Sect 219-221 Criminal negligence cause death or bodily harm)

---

I agree it's not legal deliberately creating conditions for the purpose of bodily harm or death. But don't agree that the laws are intended to hold a private land owner responsible for anything and everything that happens when someone enters their property. Criminal intent would need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B Wilson

Criminal intent would need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

---

Wrong. Recklessness as to the consequences of an action (or of failing to act) makes up the intent element of offences such as Criminal Negligence. Stringing a cable across a trail at neck level without marking it in any way would seem to constitute recklessness. The Crown would not have to prove the landowner intended to injure a person, only that (a) the act was objectively likely to cause injury and (b) that the landowner was reckless or wilfully blind to that likelihood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Wrong. Recklessness as to the consequences of an action (or of failing to act) makes up the intent element of offences such as Criminal Negligence. Stringing a cable across a trail at neck level without marking it in any way would seem to constitute recklessness. The Crown would not have to prove the landowner intended to injure a person, only that (a) the act was objectively likely to cause injury and (b) that the landowner was reckless or wilfully blind to that likelihood.

---

Explain to me what "assumes all risks" means. Does it mean assume all risks until you hurt yourself and then claim criminal negligence.

When did reasonable doubt get removed from the criminal legal system ?

Maybe it had been marked and someone else removed it. You and I don't know that for fact, so we don't know if it was recklessness or not. (let's stick with known facts)

Strange, while you lads are chasing the idea of this being a criminal act, the guy in Quebec has not been charged with anything. Do you not find that odd? Perhaps he didn't commit a crime by installing a physical barrier to keep people from entering his property.

You may not like how he did it and you might not like the end result, but it might just have been legal.

"The Crown would not have to prove the landowner intended to injure a person, only that (a) the act was objectively likely to cause injury and (b) that the landowner was reckless or willfully blind to that likelihood. "

Seriously? If this were true, he would be responsible if it had been steel gate as it would be objectively likely to cause injury if someone rode their ATV into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B Wilson

Explain to me what "assumes all risks" means. Does it mean assume all risks until you hurt yourself and then claim criminal negligence.


Seriously? If this were true, he would be responsible if it had been steel gate as it would be objectively likely to cause injury if someone rode their ATV into it.

---

If that steel gate wasn't adequately marked and they piled into it in the dark,yep,the owner's a** is grass. Oh,BTW,"assumes all risks" would only apply IF someone is injured and the owner hasn't contributed to allowing a condition to exist that may cause harm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

If that steel gate wasn't adequately marked and they piled into it in the dark,yep,the owner's a** is grass. Oh,BTW,"assumes all risks" would only apply IF someone is injured and the owner hasn't contributed to allowing a condition to exist that may cause harm.

---

So I guess all the farmers should run out and "mark" all their gates and fences for that matter ??? I think you are stretching it a bit !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

So I guess all the farmers should run out and "mark" all their gates and fences for that matter ??? I think you are stretching it a bit !

---

My farm friends where I have permission to hunt (Peterborough,Northumberland Counties and the RM of Clarington) all have their gates marked with reflective tape,"No Trespassing" signs and/or reflectors simply because of the high volume of ATV's and snow machines that like to rod around at night. They've been hit more than once judging from the scrapes,dents and dings. I doubt they think it's a stretch,at all. They seem to believe in Murphy's Law.

Murphy's law maybe, but an unmarked gate or fence certainly doesn't meet the tests for a crim neg offence. But I know what you mean.