dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13
share rss forum feed

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms

1 recommendation

reply to LazMan

Re: Hydro poll installed in middle of highway

said by LazMan:

I agree it makes no sense, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen - and having been in similar positions (having to complete my portion of a larger project, before dependancies are completed, or facing fines/penalties) in the past - I totally understand why it was done. I'm not prepared to take money out of my own pocket, because someone else can't get their sh_t together...

OK, but if there was an accident, all parties would be hauled into court for civil damages, and there could also be charges of criminal negligence involved.

If a death occurred, maybe even manslaughter or whatever it is called in Canada.

Can you imagine defending this in a civil or criminal trial?

So even from a purely monetary POV, the solution of "just do it and leave the pole there" is not good.

And---

If I were the [insurance company] for these contractors, I would hit the roof. I would drop their insurance coverage ASAP.

Insurance companies can't make a profit insuring the Three Stooges.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
said by PX Eliezer70:

Insurance companies can't make a profit insuring the Three Stooges.

This is Quebec. The whole province drives like the Three Stooges. Quebec is also a No Fault system, insured by the government.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


milnoc

join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:2
reply to PX Eliezer70
said by PX Eliezer70:

OK, but if there was an accident, all parties would be hauled into court for civil damages, and there could also be charges of criminal negligence involved.

Nope! Quebec's no fault insurance works both ways. Not only can you not sue other drivers for negligence, you can't sue the government either.

And in a province where shoddy mafia managed workmanship is the norm, the government isn't about to change that policy any time soon.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live


hm

@videotron.ca
said by milnoc:

you can't sue the government either.

Nah. You can. You can sue the municipality/city. Not sure about transport Quebec, but you likely could.

Think pot hole.

it's been a decade or maybe 2 decades since new laws came out preventing you from being able to sue the cities for pot hole damage. But that was taken to court back then. If a pot hole has been reg'd with the city for repair and you damage your car in it, then you win. Also, regardless if it's been reg'd or not, if the size meets a certain criteria (I forget the specifics dimensions) then again, you win. Basically there is no law that protects the municipality from negligence. This is negligence.

I'm just not sure who would be on the hook. Transport Quebec or the municipality. Or both.

If I had a crap car I would hit it on purpose and make a claim. Or I would borrow one of Peterboro's car's that sit on his front lawn

telco_mtl

join:2012-01-06
reply to milnoc
said by milnoc:

said by PX Eliezer70:

OK, but if there was an accident, all parties would be hauled into court for civil damages, and there could also be charges of criminal negligence involved.

Nope! Quebec's no fault insurance works both ways. Not only can you not sue other drivers for negligence, you can't sue the government either.

And in a province where shoddy mafia managed workmanship is the norm, the government isn't about to change that policy any time soon.

and if somthing falls on your head, pray you arent in a car, a man was sitting in a parked car in westmount when a tree fell on him, he was killed but no one could be sued as it involved a vehicle had he been walking his family could sue...


Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:5
reply to PX Eliezer70
said by PX Eliezer70:

said by LazMan:

I agree it makes no sense, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen - and having been in similar positions (having to complete my portion of a larger project, before dependancies are completed, or facing fines/penalties) in the past - I totally understand why it was done. I'm not prepared to take money out of my own pocket, because someone else can't get their sh_t together...

OK, but if there was an accident, all parties would be hauled into court for civil damages, and there could also be charges of criminal negligence involved.

If a death occurred, maybe even manslaughter or whatever it is called in Canada.

Can you imagine defending this in a civil or criminal trial?

So even from a purely monetary POV, the solution of "just do it and leave the pole there" is not good.

And---

If I were the [insurance company] for these contractors, I would hit the roof. I would drop their insurance coverage ASAP.

Insurance companies can't make a profit insuring the Three Stooges.

I'm shocked, an american brings up litigation.
--
Ain't nuthin but the blues! "Albert Collins".
Leave your troubles at the door! "Pepe Peregil" De Sevilla. Just Don't Wifi without WPA, "Yul Brenner"

LlamaWorks Equipment

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
said by Anav:

I'm shocked, an american brings up litigation.

You guys are catching up.

For example:

June 2012 W. Brad Hanna, FCIArb., Laura Stefan

The Quebec Superior Court has just dramatically expanded the scope of liability for franchisors in Canada. In Bertico Inc. et al. v. Dunkin' Brands Canada Ltd. ("Dunkin'") the Court held that a franchisor is required to promote its brand, fight off competitors and protect its market share for the benefit of the franchisees.

The Dunkin' decision has the potential to become a landmark decision that imposes additional obligations on franchisors and that develops new law in the area of franchisor-franchisee relations....

....The Court expressed its ultimate conclusion in strong language:

But the greatest failing of all was [franchisor's] failure to protect its brand in the Quebec market. No doubt the host of failings chronicled by the Franchisees contributed to the collapse of the Dunkin Donuts' brand in Quebec. A successful brand is crucial to the maintenance of healthy franchises. However, when the brand falls out of bed, collapses, so too do those who rely upon it. And this is precisely what has happened in this case.

»www.mcmillan.ca/dramatic-expansi···ur-brand

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to hm
said by hm :

If I had a crap car I would hit it on purpose and make a claim. Or I would borrow one of Peterboro's car's that sit on his front lawn

I'm quite fond of each of the 15 cars parked on my front lawn but don't mind you wrapping them around a pole.

Where I do draw the line is subjecting them to travelling into Quebec under any circumstances.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by peterboro:

Where I do draw the line is subjecting them to travelling into Quebec under any circumstances.

Zing!