Witness to Jaywalking to get 100 grand

CNeufeld wrote: ↑ If you actually read the article...

The motorcyclist was found to be only 25% responsible for the accident, and the pedestrians 75%. So yeah, it was 100k, but it could have been much worse.

Of course, the 100k was just for the psychological damage to the guy who didn't get hit (who watched his wife get hit). The article doesn't cover the separate lawsuit that his wife filed and settled.

C

Piro21 wrote: ↑ I'd say they were in the wrong, but they weren't. Under HTA 144 (22), jaywalking is legal unless you're "at a marked crossing", but there's no definition anywhere of how close you have to be to be considered 'at' the crossing. The rider was negligent by not exercising proper care and control and striking a pedestrian. This is using the legal understanding of Ontario's rules though, not BC's.

Where portions of a roadway are marked for pedestrian use, no pedestrian shall cross the roadway except within a portion so marked

konsensei wrote: ↑ ? Here https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08/v36#BK217 HTA 144 (22)
.

It clearly says:


Jaywalking is only legal if they are at the marked crossing, but then it's not really "jaywalking" anymore - it's a proper street crossing.

Not sure where you read yours

Section 144(22) of The Highway Traffic Act states: " Where portions of a roadway are marked for pedestrian use, no pedestrian shall cross the roadway except within a portion so marked." The law does not stipulate how far from the nearest crosswalk one must be in order to legally cross mid-block, but the Toronto Police have advised to generally use 30 metres as a 'rule of thumb.'

Where there is no crosswalk, it is legal for pedestrians to cross, so long as one yields to on-coming traffic. Toronto Municipal Code 950 Section 950-300B states: "No person shall, except where traffic control signals are in operations, or where traffic is being controlled by a police officer, or at a pedestrian crossover, proceed so as not to yield the right-of-way to vehicles and streetcars on the roadway; however, nothing in this section shall relieve the driver of a vehicle or streetcar from obligation of taking all due care to avoid a collision.

"Jaywalking" is a slang word that is often used to describe various pedestrian offences, including crossing at an intersection against a red light or "don't walk" signal, crossing mid-block where a crosswalk exists, or failing to yield to vehicles when crossing the roadway. However, "jaywalking" is not a legally defined offence.

The judge awarded Marcena a total of $395,179 in damages but in light of the finding on liability, she determined that he was entitled to 25 per cent of that amount, or $98,794.

georgecantstandya wrote: ↑ Before the outrage, it's important to read the very last line.



The woman who was hit was awarded almost 400K. The judge is simply saying that based on the suffering and toll it took on the husbands life, he is entitled to 25% of the damages, approx $100K.

This is not the same as saying they settled with the woman who was hit, and then an additional $100K for the husband.

CNeufeld wrote: ↑ Speaking of important to read, I'm not sure you're reading that right... This whole article is about case the husband filed against the motorcyclist who hit is wife. The judge awarded the husband 400k, but then turned around and said he was only entitled to 25% of it because the husband and wife were mostly responsible for the accident in the first place. The "she" in the sentence you quote is referring to the judge, not the wife.

The case the wife filed against the motorcyclist was settled already, and no mention of the outcome was made in this article.

C