Don't think he has a leg to stand on but;
http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1523585
Originally Posted by sAFETY
As a vegitarian, I don't eat bacon, as a human being I crave and miss it.
Rider Taking WBP to Court?
Interesting.. happened roughly two years ago. Wonder if a lawyer came by and said, "Hey guys, whassup? Let's sue!"
What a tool.
I mean come on I feel bad that the guy got hurt but our sport is dangerous if you don't know that there is something wrong with your head.
It's a cash grab headed up by a greedy Lawyer, that will result in the park being dumbed down gay gay gay.
You have to wonder if it's the individual or his insurer pulling this crap.
I also wonder if he actually read the waiver they made him sign?
Pastor of Muppets
Blackcomb has a bike park?
What's a spinal chord? Does it play music?
That's some quality reporting there.
Kn.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.
Interesting.. happened roughly two years ago. Wonder if a lawyer came by and said, "Hey guys, whassup? Let's sue!"
Two years to burn through your savings, realise what a state you're in and look for a way out.
Blackcomb has a bike park?
What's a spinal chord? Does it play music?
That's some quality reporting there.
Kn.
could have been the blackcomb beginner park if it was a couple years ago.
based on the waivers one must sign to get a ticket, this guy is full of it if he says he wasn't warned properly. that being said, it could be a insurer thing too, I know of another situation where an injured rider filed a claim for disability do to a event related injury and his insurer is in turn suing a group even though he doesn't want them to…..
You have to wonder if it's the individual or his insurer pulling this crap.
This.
Its possible that if the individual made a big insurance claim after his injury, the insurance company could be trying to find a way to recover the costs. The named plaintiff wouldn't even have to be involved in the claim at ALL or have prior knowledge of it…
And the fact that the lawsuit is filed doesn't mean its actually going to go ahead: it would have to be served for that to happen.
If I recall correctly, there's a 2 year time limit to "file" a claim after a loss, and then there's a year to "serve" it on the defendants…
How do I know this? My name appeared as a plaintiff in a writ filed this past January. I did not have ANY prior knowledge of the claim being filed or give specific consent to being a plaintiff. I simply found out one day because it appeared in a Vancouver business newsletter.
Turns out my insurance company is potentially trying to recover the costs they incurred by paying out a large claim to me after a fire. Apparently, there is wording in insurance policies that allows them to sue "in your name" and the insurance company doesn't need the specific consent of the insured.
There is no wording in the filed claim to indicate that it is the insurance company going after the defendant. I figured out who was the "real" plaintiff by calling the plaintiff's solicitor listed on the writ and asking him…
:canada: :czech:
How do I know this? My name appeared as a plaintiff in a writ filed this past January. I did not have ANY prior knowledge of the claim being filed or give specific consent to being a plaintiff. I simply found out one day because it appeared in a Vancouver business newsletter.
Turns out my insurance company is potentially trying to recover the costs they incurred by paying out a large claim to me after a fire. Apparently, there is wording in insurance policies that allows them to sue "in your name" and the insurance company doesn't need the specific consent of the insured.
There is no wording in the filed claim to indicate that it is the insurance company going after the defendant. I figured out who was the "real" plaintiff by calling the plaintiff's solicitor listed on the writ and asking him…
This is called the right of subrogation.
A recent case dealing with both the waiver issue and the BCPA can be found here:
Anyone who ever signs a waiver should take the time to read the law on point. I am constantly amazed when I hear people getting their lift tickets saying something to the effect that the waiver is somehow meaningless.
Also, the news bit does not state how old the plaintiff was at the time. There is a great deal of argument over the effect of minors (or their parents for that matter) signing a waiver, release and/or indemnity.
Even if the plaintiff here was an adult, as the case noted above shows, the cases are very fact specific. For example, it has been argued in the past that if you are given a waiver for the first time on the bus on the way to your adventure, you don't really have the opportunity to asses the risks.
As for subrogation, you actually do give them consent to sue in on your behalf - first when you purchase the insurance and often a second time when you are paid out.
As for subrogation, you actually do give them consent to sue in on your behalf - first when you purchase the insurance and often a second time when you are paid out.
Agreed that by signing the insurance policy, the insured gives consent to subrogation (there must be wording about this in the 50+ page full policy document)
Still seems odd that the insurer would not at least gives a "heads up" to the insured that a claim is about to be filed in their name. In my case, there wasn't consent given a 2nd time since the claim hasn't been finalized so I haven't signed any paperwork after the claim.
:canada: :czech:
He and/or his insurance company should eat a big bag of dicks!:fruit::dead::lemon:
Originally posted by Purecanadianhoney
I don't see how hard it would be to scrape out the head of your cock once in a while.
Forum jump:
