Quick Links
Good Sites
Categories
Archives
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
This and that
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 13, 2004 08:32 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 13, 2004 08:32 PM
Doored Cyclist Sues City of Toronto (by Nancy Smith Lea)
Does the City of Toronto have a duty to make sure
cyclists can ride
safely on their streets? If a cyclist gets "doored" on a Toronto street
because there is not enough space between parked cars and the
street car lanes, can the City be required to fix the street?
safely on their streets? If a cyclist gets "doored" on a Toronto street
because there is not enough space between parked cars and the
street car lanes, can the City be required to fix the street?
In Toronto on Monday July 5th, a judge will
announce his ruling in an
important case which may help answer this question. Future cases in
higher courts could well consider this a test case. The lawyers
for the cyclist were Sean Dewart and Tim Gleason.
Summary of the case against the City: The plaintiff (the cyclist) was riding
her bike on Queen St. W. in downtown Toronto on April 14, 2002.
A motorist opened his vehicle door into her path (aka she was "doored")
one block east of a major north/south bike lane. Thankfully her injuries
were not serious but hundreds of other cyclists have not been so fortunate.
According to a recent report released by the City, there were 276 cases
of dooring between 1997 and 1998. Most of these incidents occurred on
east/west arterial roads in the downtown core, making it "the most frequently
reported type of bicycle/motor-vehicle collision in central Toronto."
The City is aware that there are several infrastructure improvements that could
be made to reduce the number of dooring collisions and to improve the overall
safety of cyclists, including bike lanes and wide curb lanes, yet has failed to do
so.
Furthermore, not only has the City not warned cyclists about the danger that
existson roads not wide enough to share, they lured cyclists by designating
Queen St. W. as a bike route.
Summary of the City's defense: The City (the defendant) claims there was
no disrepair on the highway. This accident could have happened on any
road with parked vehicles. There are two causal factors, neither of which
has to do with the City. The first is whether or not the driver took reasonable
care and the other is where the cyclist was riding. Dooring accidents can
happen regardless of lane width.
The City said the collision was entirely the fault of the driver and the cyclist
and that the City was not liable. In response, the plaintiff's lawyers pointed
out that the City was recklessly negligent in permitting a known dangerous
condition to persist for decades, and that the law in Ontario imposes a duty
to warn of a dangerous condition (Jane Doe v. Toronto Police).
On Monday, June 28th, Deputy Judge Winer heard the arguments of the
lawyers for the plaintiff, the lawyers for the defendant, from four expert
witnesses as well as the testimony of the plaintiff. At the end of the day
the Judge decided he needed more time to make his decision.
He will make his ruling on Monday, July 5th @ 9:30 am.
The affidavit of the expert witness for the plaintiff can be
found at: http://www.respect.to/~nsmithlea/
important case which may help answer this question. Future cases in
higher courts could well consider this a test case. The lawyers
for the cyclist were Sean Dewart and Tim Gleason.
Summary of the case against the City: The plaintiff (the cyclist) was riding
her bike on Queen St. W. in downtown Toronto on April 14, 2002.
A motorist opened his vehicle door into her path (aka she was "doored")
one block east of a major north/south bike lane. Thankfully her injuries
were not serious but hundreds of other cyclists have not been so fortunate.
According to a recent report released by the City, there were 276 cases
of dooring between 1997 and 1998. Most of these incidents occurred on
east/west arterial roads in the downtown core, making it "the most frequently
reported type of bicycle/motor-vehicle collision in central Toronto."
The City is aware that there are several infrastructure improvements that could
be made to reduce the number of dooring collisions and to improve the overall
safety of cyclists, including bike lanes and wide curb lanes, yet has failed to do
so.
Furthermore, not only has the City not warned cyclists about the danger that
existson roads not wide enough to share, they lured cyclists by designating
Queen St. W. as a bike route.
Summary of the City's defense: The City (the defendant) claims there was
no disrepair on the highway. This accident could have happened on any
road with parked vehicles. There are two causal factors, neither of which
has to do with the City. The first is whether or not the driver took reasonable
care and the other is where the cyclist was riding. Dooring accidents can
happen regardless of lane width.
The City said the collision was entirely the fault of the driver and the cyclist
and that the City was not liable. In response, the plaintiff's lawyers pointed
out that the City was recklessly negligent in permitting a known dangerous
condition to persist for decades, and that the law in Ontario imposes a duty
to warn of a dangerous condition (Jane Doe v. Toronto Police).
On Monday, June 28th, Deputy Judge Winer heard the arguments of the
lawyers for the plaintiff, the lawyers for the defendant, from four expert
witnesses as well as the testimony of the plaintiff. At the end of the day
the Judge decided he needed more time to make his decision.
He will make his ruling on Monday, July 5th @ 9:30 am.
The affidavit of the expert witness for the plaintiff can be
found at: http://www.respect.to/~nsmithlea/
Posted: Thu - July 1, 2004 at 03:38 PM