Liability question | GTAMotorcycle.com

Liability question

happycrappy

happycrappy

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Forum Sponsor
In light of the recent fatality in Hamilton, a specific question occurred to me. For the legal experts please, is there any liability risk to the parents of this rider, who struck and damaged another vehicle? Obviously this driver wasn't badly injured, but just in general. I know the riders estate could have a claim against it, I am mostly asking because be still lived with his parents, so I was curious that if there was a claim filed against him (presuming insurance was void, cancelled, or not available due to his non-license status), could it be levied against the parents as well?
 
Is there a link to the incident? Legal issues are rarely black and white.

In this case a motorcycle involved but in general isn't the question "To what extent is a parent responsible for the damages caused by their offspring?"

A major point would be who was the registered owner of the vehicle. If it was registered to the father and it was known that he regularly let sonny ride it he could be in serious trouble.

Going further, what if daddy buys a used mini-trail for his 10 year old and sonny takes a romp though the neighbourhood and cripples a little old lady out for a walk?

The bike was gifted to the kid who is therefore the owner but due to age wouldn't see much punishment.

Like I said, not black and white.
 
Considering at least the one article seemed to state the guy just 'showed up' with the bike 4 days before the accident, I'm guessing it was either somehow registered in his own name or no one's name (he obviously didn't have plates for it if he had a suspended Gx license and no insurance).

Also, in a sense I guess this could also be similar if a cyclists or ebike rider decided to stop their forward momentum via your quarter panel? In both cases there is no insurance on the at-fault individual...

One more reason though to always carry full insurance if your vehicle is new-ish and you can afford it. If the truck driver had that his collision would be taking care of it as far as I know.
 
nobbie48 said:
Is there a link to the incident? Legal issues are rarely black and white.

In this case a motorcycle involved but in general isn't the question "To what extent is a parent responsible for the damages caused by their offspring?"

A major point would be who was the registered owner of the vehicle. If it was registered to the father and it was known that he regularly let sonny ride it he could be in serious trouble.

Going further, what if daddy buys a used mini-trail for his 10 year old and sonny takes a romp though the neighbourhood and cripples a little old lady out for a walk?

The bike was gifted to the kid who is therefore the owner but due to age wouldn't see much punishment.

Like I said, not black and white.
Click to expand...

Link right here. It's been posted a number of times but deleted by moderators soon after.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6...killed-in-downtown-hamilton-motorcycle-crash/
 
conundrum said:
Also, in a sense I guess this could also be similar if a cyclists or ebike rider decided to stop their forward momentum via your quarter panel? In both cases there is no insurance on the at-fault individual...
Click to expand...

Civil liability should still fall onto the at-fault person, but if they are not required to have insurance then there is no insurance policy (and formally-legislated fault determination rules) to formally assign fault and force compensation for the damaged vehicle. You would have to file a claim and go after the ebike rider yourself in small claims courts.
 
nobbie48 said:
Going further, what if daddy buys a used mini-trail for his 10 year old and sonny takes a romp though the neighbourhood and cripples a little old lady out for a walk?

The bike was gifted to the kid who is therefore the owner but due to age wouldn't see much punishment.

Like I said, not black and white.
Click to expand...

Parental Responsibility Act applies to children under 18 years of age.

Onus is on parents to prove they exercised due diligence in preventing their child from causing damage or injury to others. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/00p04
 
griff2 said:
Parental Responsibility Act applies to children under 18 years of age.

Onus is on parents to prove they exercised due diligence in preventing their child from causing damage or injury to others. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/00p04
Click to expand...

I thought a kid could leave home when they were 16. Does daddy still get the bill if they mess up?

That's why pets are better than children. When they get pregnant you can sell the offspring.
 
raginduck said:
The onus would be on the crown to prove the parents didn't...
Click to expand...

No, there are plenty of court precedents on this. There is reverse onus on parents requiring them to demonstrate they exercised due diligence on overseeing their child activities.
 
You can be made to pay for damage your pets cause as well.
If your dog gets hit by a car and the car is damaged.. you could get a bill from the insurance company.
 
Just going through this.

Parked on a street legally for a BBQ and another friend's kid ran into the back of vehicle and caused damage to the hatch paint and bumper. SUV with a flat arse end.

12 year old on a bicycle.

Mom freaked at me when I asked them to pay for damages.

Needless to say it's gonna end our friendship, s'alright as I thought she was flakey regardless. She just doesn't understand how my car (damaged) is more important than her (undamaged) kid.

Sigh - I KINDA get it, if your kid was learning to ride. But this kid has ridden a bike since 6 and it's not like he wobbled into my car out of control. He simply wasn't paying attention (talking to his other friend riding bikes)
 
Last edited:
griff2 said:
No, there are plenty of court precedents on this. There is reverse onus on parents requiring them to demonstrate they exercised due diligence on overseeing their child activities.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is.. but reverse onus is not the norm.
I'm guessing they're mostly related to young offenders with multiple convictions, serious charges, etc... I could be wrong though.. I don't know.
If you know of a couple examples, i'd be interested in the read.
 
raginduck said:
I'm sure there is.. but reverse onus is not the norm.
I'm guessing they're mostly related to young offenders with multiple convictions, serious charges, etc... I could be wrong though.. I don't know.
If you know of a couple examples, i'd be interested in the read.
Click to expand...

It's right in the Parental Responsibility Act legislation.
[h=4]Parents’ onus of proof in actions not under this Act[/h]10. (1) This section applies to any action brought otherwise than under this Act. 2000, c. 4, s. 10 (1).
[h=4]Same[/h](2) In an action against a parent for damage to property or for personal injury or death caused by the fault or neglect of a child who is a minor, the onus of establishing that the parent exercised reasonable supervision and control over the child rests with the parent. 2000, c. 4, s. 10 (2).
[h=4]Same[/h](3) In subsection (2),
“child” and “parent” have the same meaning as in the Family Law Act. 2000, c. 4, s. 10 (3).
Click to expand...


http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2007/2007canlii21954/2007canlii21954.pdf

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2006/2006canlii12724/2006canlii12724.pdf
 
meme said:
Sigh - I KINDA get it, if your kid was learning to ride. But this kid has ridden a bike since 6 and it's not like he wobbled into my car out of control. He simply wasn't paying attention (talking to his other friend riding bikes)
Click to expand...

I taught my kid to ride in an empty parking lot where she couldn't scrape cars or get run over by one if she fell.

I don't know about you but for me friends that don't think aren't worth having.
 
conundrum said:
One more reason though to always carry full insurance if your vehicle is new-ish and you can afford it. If the truck driver had that his collision would be taking care of it as far as I know.
Click to expand...

This would be covered by the "uninsured motorist" clause, not collision coverage, no?
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom