12-19-2017, 08:59 AM
(12-17-2017, 10:16 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [quote pid='46390' dateline='1513479592']
Maybe I’m wrong and a reasonable city effort to clear snow from all sidewalks would eliminate the legal liability. If so, then that is yet another reason for the city to do that. Rather than wasting money on settlements, spend it on clearing snow.
[/quote]
Respectfully, you are wrong, and plam is a lot closer to the mark when he talks about "reasonability" tests being applied. If a person slips on a sidewalk, it's not black and white who is at fault, and likely a portion of the liability rests with both the person and the municipalities (and maybe others, who knows).
There are cases (I'm thinking of one in particular involving an aged woman in Hamilton) where someone trips on a crack in a sidewalk, the City is held liable, and people are up in arms because everyone should just watch where they're going. In the case I'm thinking of, the City was aware of the unlevel pavement, and didn't even follow its own insufficient policies. Even with that, the City was not 100% at fault, and the woman's behaviour was a contributing factor.
It's not helpful to say that "suing after a slip-and-fall is unreasonable." A person should be able to have some expectations about the infrastructure in his or her city. When that's not met, of course pursuing legal action should be an option.