Automotive

Witness to Jaywalking to get 100 grand

  • Last Updated:
  • Aug 10th, 2019 11:47 pm
Tags:
26 replies
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
19243 posts
3361 upvotes
Toronto
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.
Deal Fanatic
Jan 18, 2003
5735 posts
1528 upvotes
Mississauga
that's a poor title...

you're missing the part of seeing your spouse get run over by a motorcycle...
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
11575 posts
7840 upvotes
Edmonton
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
Member
User avatar
Apr 26, 2019
209 posts
287 upvotes
GTA
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
The motorcyclist should sue the pedestrians back since they were 75% responsible. For trauma and all...
Deal Addict
Aug 1, 2007
2107 posts
636 upvotes
+1... and im surprised this doesnt happen more often.
Deal Addict
Aug 1, 2007
2107 posts
636 upvotes
Its poor laws like this that encourages shttiy behavior from shittiy citizens. See how fast social behavior changes once we change the law to "if you jaywalk you can be legally plowed down without any recourse"
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 17, 2006
6830 posts
5732 upvotes
North York
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.
? Here https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08/v36#BK217 HTA 144 (22)
Image.

It clearly says:
Where portions of a roadway are marked for pedestrian use, no pedestrian shall cross the roadway except within a portion so marked
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
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
19243 posts
3361 upvotes
Toronto
konsensei wrote: ? Here https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08/v36#BK217 HTA 144 (22)
Image.

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
https://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgebas ... gnals.html

Relevant section bolded:
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.
Where the roads are marked for crossings (i.e. at a crosswalk) you can only cross within the crosswalk, but it's legal to cross a road anywhere where the roads are not marked. There is no legal definition of where that separation of 'markings exist' and 'no markings exist' is though.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 21, 2013
1515 posts
1637 upvotes
GTA
Before the outrage, it's important to read the very last line.
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.
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.



Edit - I stand corrected... this settlement was brought by the husband over and above of the wife's (who got mowed down) settlement.
Last edited by georgecantstandya on Aug 9th, 2019 4:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
11575 posts
7840 upvotes
Edmonton
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.
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
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 7, 2007
3824 posts
1446 upvotes
Conclusion: no matter what, pedestrian go first, motor vehicle goes second.

Even if the pedestrians are careless, motor vehicle operator will be found guilty (at various degrees, depending of the circumstances).

By the way, this is the way it should be!
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jun 9, 2003
24646 posts
1807 upvotes
Markham, ON
That's more than Hughie got from the A-Train....but the victim wasnt the spouse.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 7, 2007
3824 posts
1446 upvotes
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
Probably the wife already got $400 K in a separate judgement... the husband got an additional $100 K.

Imagine if they were crossing at the corner... the driver would probably had to pay twice as much.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jun 9, 2003
24646 posts
1807 upvotes
Markham, ON
motomondo wrote: Conclusion: no matter what, pedestrian go first, motor vehicle goes second.

Even if the pedestrians are careless, motor vehicle operator will be found guilty (at various degrees, depending of the circumstances).

By the way, this is the way it should be!
nope...only if the driver was found to be at fault >1%

Top