is the writing on the wall?

[ferniesnow]

Is this about to happen in our sport?

Think about the ramifications! If someone sets off an avalanche and survives, incurs a large cost to the public through S&R and hospital bills, involves other back-country users, etc. etc.....it appears the government may set the wheels in motion to recoupe some costs.....IMHO, I think things are changing in BC and not necessarily for the better

B.C. sues companies, feds over horrific balloon crash

 

[LID]

Maybe the random hero's who highmark past someone stuck on a hill may think twice if they can get sued if they set off a slide and hurt someone. They sure don't think about it now. Could be a good thing.

On the other hand, I definitely don't want to see the US style "sue everyone for everything" system come into play.

 

[Bogger]

I can't see it going anywhere.....

Why should you be able to re-coup costs from an accident when you can't even re-coup costs from a deliberate act?

Drunk driver for example, gets drunk and knowingly (premeditated) gets behind the wheel and causes a major traffic accident.... Costs include (asside from the moral cost) EMS, medical expense, property damage, and loss of quality of life for the victims.

The drunk driver gets charged with impaired, possibly manslauder if there is a fatality. He is charged a fine and a small victim surcharge fee. There is the possibility of civil suit by the families affected but this is up to them to persue.

The government makes no attempt to re-coupe immediate cost caused by the drivers blatant negligence.

An accident is just that, unfortunate but an accident none the less. If this case is allowed to proceed and a verdict is handed down it sets a dangerous precidence. Businesses are required to carry insurance, if cost relief is attempted it should be done thru the insurance companies not individual stake holders unless gross negligence can be proven. My understanding is that the balloon was approved for use by transport canada and operated by a licenced business. For the famies of the victims to seek retribution in a civil suit is one thing, for the government to seek reimursment for social cost another matter altogether.

If there was an accident involving the a government transit bus is the Health authority going to sue the transit department to re-coup costs?
When a fishing vessel gets into trouble and the coast guard spends millions of dollars using helicopters and vessels to perform a rescue is the owner of the vessel required to pay back the costs of said rescue?
If a person decides to take a high dive off of a skyscaper because a coworker stole his spongebob pencil does the public works department sue the family for the cost of the bleach to mop up the stain off the sidewalk?

Our taxes pay for the emergency services which are available to save our azzes if we do something stupid or make a bad chioce, if they are going to attempt to recoup costs why not start with the avoidable, negligent situations??????

Just my 2 cents....

 

[ferniesnow]

I can't see it going anywhere.....

Why should you be able to re-coup costs from an accident when you can't even re-coup costs from a deliberate act?

Drunk driver for example, gets drunk and knowingly (premeditated) gets behind the wheel and causes a major traffic accident.... Costs include (asside from the moral cost) EMS, medical expense, property damage, and loss of quality of life for the victims.

The drunk driver gets charged with impaired, possibly manslauder if there is a fatality. He is charged a fine and a small victim surcharge fee. There is the possibility of civil suit by the families affected but this is up to them to persue.

The government makes no attempt to re-coupe immediate cost caused by the drivers blatant negligence.

An accident is just that, unfortunate but an accident none the less. If this case is allowed to proceed and a verdict is handed down it sets a dangerous precidence. Businesses are required to carry insurance, if cost relief is attempted it should be done thru the insurance companies not individual stake holders unless gross negligence can be proven. My understanding is that the balloon was approved for use by transport canada and operated by a licenced business. For the famies of the victims to seek retribution in a civil suit is one thing, for the government to seek reimursment for social cost another matter altogether.

If there was an accident involving the a government transit bus is the Health authority going to sue the transit department to re-coup costs?
When a fishing vessel gets into trouble and the coast guard spends millions of dollars using helicopters and vessels to perform a rescue is the owner of the vessel required to pay back the costs of said rescue?
If a person decides to take a high dive off of a skyscaper because a coworker stole his spongebob pensil does the public works department sue the family for the cost of the bleach to mop up the stain off the sidewalk?

Our taxes pay for the emergency services which are available to save our azzes if we do something stupid or make a bad chioce, if they are going to attempt to recoup costs why not start with the avoidable, negligent situations??????

Just my 2 cents....

It is an interesting scenario and you make some damn good points. It will be interesting to see if the case is allowed to go ahead.

But the government keeps saying they will recoupe costs for accidentally set or deliberately set forest fires if they find the culprits. Isn't that sort of the same thing?

 

[Bogger]

It is an interesting scenario and you make some damn good points. It will be interesting to see if the case is allowed to go ahead.

But the government keeps saying they will recoupe costs for accidentally set or deliberately set forest fires if they find the culprits. Isn't that sort of the same thing?

I would think that if a person were to have a fire go out of control in a fire permitted area and immediately summoned for help it would qualify as an accident.

If a person were having a fire during a ban or in a fire not permitted area OR were to lose control of a fire and high-tail out of the area without telling anyone they should be held responsible... no longer qualifies as an accident in my mind.

Same with flicking cigarett buts out a window or riding without a spark arrester, if you are too stupid to figure out that these activities pose a very realistic risk then you deserve to be held responsible.

Needs to be situational decision, blanket laws of any form don't seem to work.

But my original point was why not start with trying to recoup costs from deliberate acts before preying on accidents.

 

[jbb]

I would think that if a person were to have a fire go out of control in a fire permitted area and immediately summoned for help it would qualify as an accident.

If a person were having a fire during a ban or in a fire not permitted area OR were to lose control of a fire and high-tail out of the area without telling anyone they should be held responsible... no longer qualifies as an accident in my mind.

Same with flicking cigarett buts out a window or riding without a spark arrester, if you are too stupid to figure out that these activities pose a very realistic risk then you deserve to be held responsible.

Needs to be situational decision, blanket laws of any form don't seem to work.

But my original point was why not start with trying to recoup costs from deliberate acts before preying on accidents.

bc already has a law. cause a fire and up to 1 million dollar fine or 3 yrs in jail. and now there imposing a speed law.over 40 kph and they impound your car.

 

[Bogger]

bc already has a law. cause a fire and up to 1 million dollar fine or 3 yrs in jail. and now there imposing a speed law.over 40 kph and they impound your car.

WTF, GTFO, Someone should start a thread about that......

 

[ferniesnow]

bc already has a law. cause a fire and up to 1 million dollar fine or 3 yrs in jail. and now there imposing a speed law.over 40 kph and they impound your car.

Yea, but now they are talking about suing to recoupe costs associated with the balloon accident a fews ago. Read about it in the first post.

 

[ferniesnow]

.......But my original point was why not start with trying to recoup costs from deliberate acts before preying on accidents.

I agree 100%. The impaired drivers, the thieves, the hit and run drivers, etc. Sort of like and eye for an eye! Yes, it might even be a good form of deterrent in this socialistic society.....but then again, the do-gooders would get involved and cry the blues.....

 

[LID]

Sort of like and eye for an eye! Yes, it might even be a good form of deterrent in this socialistic society.....

That's exactly what we need. They need to make the punishment fit the crime. If you steal a 14,000dollar sled, you need to work off the 14,000 dollars, not do 10 hours of community service. If they steal your truck, they work off the value of the truck, and are prohibited from driving until they pay it off.

Crime rate would plummet if there were some consequences.

 

[shoppingcart111]

No youre all wrong:d, what this country needs is a little vigilante justice for about a year just to get the message accross. In some parts of the Middle East if you steal you get your finger chopped off, does that person steal again? If these damn young offenders got the punishment to fit the crime they wouldn't do it again. If you rape someone you get your d%^k chopped off, etc, etc, etc, then maybe people would think twice about what they do not, oh I'm going to steal cause I know the justice system is a joke.

As to the gentelman that said if they steal a 14,000 sled they should have to pay off the amount of 14,000, cause they will probably just go steal another to pay for the first one and hope they dont get caught the second time.

Or maybe I'm wrong?