# I was hit by a City of Toronto Vehicle!



## Rumski24 (Mar 15, 2016)

So I was biking to work and I was stuck by a John Deer Gator operated by a city worker. I saw him coming southbound down a road as I was heading westbound. I was distract for a second as I heard loud chatter from two parked buses on the left. I look ahead and there's that Gator, smoked him head on and bounced back a few feet. I shattered his wind-shield and I was lucky to not break any bones. My right leg took most of the damage and I've been limping around since, lower back has a bruise and is stiff.

Police report did NOT charge the driver because I didn't have a headlight on my bike (6:50am was the time I got hit) I have no idea how he didn't see me, street lights are there. He had a stop sign, so if he would of stopped I don't think he would of accelerated enough to hit me that hard or actually see me coming. Unfortunately I didn't mention the stop sign in the police report, just didn't think of it at the time. But checked the area on google maps and noticed it.

I don't have auto insurance and only have renters insurance. Next step is to get the city's insurance of the vehicle to cover the damage to my bike. I do think I can go back to work this week, so I won't miss more than 7 days. If my was injury was a tad more major I could claim for accident benefit coverage.

Don't think I can sue for soft tissue damage. Would be a tough case. Plus I would have to proof he ran that stop sign, not worth the hassle I think.

Anyone got advice on how to go about this or been in a similar situation? I could send a detail report to City claims and see what they say? Other than that I'm not sure what to do.

Cheers


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Yikes. That really sucks. I bike to work year round (even take my 5 year old with me quite often) and things like this are always scary.

Hope it's nothing serious - soft tissue can get worse in the short term.

Report it on this site: https://bikemaps.org/

Still seems pretty underpopulated for TO but you need to start somewhere.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Rumski24 said:


> So I was biking to work and I was stuck by a John Deer Gator operated by a city worker. I saw him coming southbound down a road as I was heading westbound. I was distract for a second as I heard loud chatter from two parked buses on the left. I look ahead and there's that Gator, smoked him head on and bounced back a few feet. I shattered his wind-shield and I was lucky to not break any bones. My right leg took most of the damage and I've been limping around since, lower back has a bruise and is stiff.
> 
> Police report did NOT charge the driver because I didn't have a headlight on my bike (6:50am was the time I got hit) I have no idea how he didn't see me, street lights are there. He had a stop sign, so if he would of stopped I don't think he would of accelerated enough to hit me that hard or actually see me coming. Unfortunately I didn't mention the stop sign in the police report, just didn't think of it at the time. But checked the area on google maps and noticed it.
> 
> ...


I see a lot of ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers advertising on TV these days. They work on contingency and get paid only if they win your case..however..

you need a detailed description of what happened,' 
who had the right of way and who had the stop sign. 
What injuries you suffered as a result of the accident,
how many days work missed (loss of income),
police report of events,
your description of events, 
the other drivers description of events, 
damage to bicycle from a bicycle shop, 
medical report if you were taken or went after to a hospital..

that will do for starters..


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Just make sure you give notice in timely fashion. I do not know about Toronto, specifically, but in many Canadian jurisdictions, local governments get some measure of protection from statutes, variously called the Municipal Act, the Local Government Act, etc. Many say you must give notice, with quite a short fuse. Often within 60 days. For example, the City of Vancouver has its own statute, the Vancouver Charter. It provides, in part:

Section 294(2):

The city is in no case liable for damages unless notice in writing, setting forth the time, place, and manner in which such damage has been sustained, shall be left and filed with the City Clerk within two months from and after the date on which such damage was sustained; provided that in case of the death of a person injured the want of a notice required by this subsection is not a bar to the maintenance of the action. The want or insufficiency of the notice required by this subsection is not a bar to the maintenance of an action if the Court or Judge before whom such action is tried or, in the case of an appeal, the Court of Appeal is of the opinion that there was reasonable excuse for the want or insufficiency and that the city has not been thereby prejudiced in its defence.

I'll not seek to express any opinion about liability or damages issues in your case, the factual matrix not being well developed in your post (not that it should be).


----------



## LBCfan (Jan 13, 2011)

Why ask here, just sue for every dollar you can imagine?


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

Mukhang is correct. You must file asap. Not sure about this type of accident but when I worked in ontario, if you fell on a city sidewalk you only had 7 days to file a notice.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Rumski, sorry to hear about this accident - that sounds like a bad one. I was a Toronto cyclist for many years and I sympathize.

Paperwork is important; I'd take the steps the others mentioned. If you haven't already I would also visit a doctor / walk-in clinic _immediately_ to get checked out -- make sure there isn't something more important.

Police report is good, I'm glad you did that.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

LBCfan said:


> Why ask here, just sue for every dollar you can imagine?


Just call " 1-800-DEWEY,CHEATEM & HOWE " personally injury lawyers.:biggrin:


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

My firm was Dewey, Screwem and Howe.


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

Sorry to hear about your injuries. I'm sure that's the last thing you need. 

But I think that the issue is that you hit him as much as he hit you. You didn't have a light. Did he? If so, then you should have seen him, and it's unreasonable to expect him to see you. Unless you had right-of-way, e.g., if you can show that he failed to stop at the stop sign, you may have trouble winning this one.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Davis said:


> Sorry to hear about your injuries. I'm sure that's the last thing you need.
> 
> But I think that the issue is that you hit him as much as he hit you. You didn't have a light. Did he? If so, *then you should have seen him, and it's unreasonable to expect him to see you. Unless you had right-of-way,* e.g., if you can show that he failed to stop at the stop sign, you may have trouble winning this one.


lets examimne the facts as related from one side..presume there were no other witnesses..



> I look ahead and there's that Gator, *smoked him head on and bounced back a few feet*. I shattered his wind-shield and I was lucky to not break any bones. My right leg took most of the damage and I've been limping around since, lower back has a bruise and is stiff.
> 
> gator sidewalk clearing vehicle going southbound. bicycle rider hit him head one..hard enough to break windshield...no light on bike..
> 
> https://www.deere.com/common/media/...les/2011_xuvs/825i/r4a040677_825i_642x462.png


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Sounds to me like a case perhaps involving contributory negligence, where liability would be apportioned, perhaps even 50/50, but having heard only one side, and with sparse facts at that, hard to say. Perhaps still worth a go in Small Claims Ct., if the city won't agree to settle it, even as a nuisance claim.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> Sounds to me like a case perhaps involving contributory negligence, where liability would be apportioned, perhaps even 50/50, but having heard only one side, and with sparse facts at that, hard to say. Perhaps still worth a go in Small Claims Ct., if the city won't agree to settle it, even as a nuisance claim.


uNFORTUNATE AS HIS CASE MAY BE....I doubt that he can proceed very far in small claims court..here are the bicycle traffic rules in ONTARIO...
http://www.newyouth.ca/daily-life/buses-cars-bikes/what-are-bike-laws-ontario



> All bikes must have..
> 
> You also need to make sure you have all of these things on your bike (or on you).
> In Ontario, all bikes, by law, must have:
> ...


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

carverman said:


> uNFORTUNATE AS HIS CASE MAY BE....I doubt that he can proceed very far in small claims court..here are the bicycle traffic rules in ONTARIO...
> http://www.newyouth.ca/daily-life/buses-cars-bikes/what-are-bike-laws-ontario


The fact that he failed to obey the law by not displaying a proper light will not necessarily put an end to his cause of action, should he have one, which he well might. Indeed, that is why I raised the issue of contributory negligence. Regardless of any statutory lighting requirement, the law would say that cycling at night without a light is a failure to take due care for one's own safety, i.e., it is negligence. But that does not excuse the Gator operator if he was also negligent and that negligence was a contributing cause to the accident.

I'll go further - even more outrageous if you will. Let us posit a scenario where our Gator driver has been out there picking up trash with his Gator. He has been placing said trash in 50-gallon bins in the back of the machine. He's getting a rather full load so, unwisely, he places one full bin on top of another, directly behind the driver's seat. He is now descending a narrow laneway with his loaded Gator. To slow his gathering speed on the downhill, he applies his brakes. That has the unfortunate - but probably foreseeable - effect of causing the bin behind him to topple over, covering him in trash, obscuring his vision. He gets flustered, swats at the trash, forgets he is still moving forward and emerges at some speed from the laneway onto a throughfare, just as our unfortunate cyclist Rumski is coming along. Whack!!! He takes out Rumski!

In the above scenario, would any doubt the Gator operator's negligence? I think not. Now, let's add Rumski's failure to have a light into the mix. Negligent to be running around in the dark sans light. Okay. But was the failure to display a light of causative significance? I would say no. The Gator operator's negligence disabled his ability to see any light had it been there to be seen. Rumski showing a light would have been of no assistance. It would not have averted the accident. In that case, I think a court could reasonably hold the Gator operator wholly at fault. His negligence was the _causa causans_ of the accident.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> I'll go further - even more outrageous if you will. Let us posit a scenario where our Gator driver has been out there picking up trash with his Gator. He has been placing said trash in 50-gallon bins in the back of the machine. He's getting a rather full load so, unwisely, he places one full bin on top of another, directly behind the driver's seat. He is now descending a narrow laneway with his loaded Gator. To slow his gathering speed on the downhill, he applies his brakes. That has the unfortunate - but probably foreseeable - effect of causing the bin behind him to topple over, covering him in trash,
> 
> obscuring his vision. *He gets flustered, swats at the trash, forgets he is still moving forward and emerges at some speed from the laneway onto a throughfare, *just as our unfortunate cyclist Rumski is coming along. Whack!!! He takes out Rumski!
> 
> In the above scenario, would any doubt the Gator operator's negligence? I think not. Now, let's add Rumski's failure to have a light into the mix. Negligent to be running around in the dark sans light. Okay. But was the failure to display a light of causative significance? I would say no. The Gator operator's negligence disabled his ability to see any light had it been there to be seen. Rumski showing a light would have been of no assistance. It would not have averted the accident. In that case, I think a court could reasonably hold the Gator operator wholly at fault. His negligence was the _causa causans_ of the accident.


 I like your intuitive analysis of what may have happened. Are you an insurance investigator? It was just an unfortunate accident..being at the wrong place at the wrong time..but I rather like your analysis of said accident according to "doyle"..er Rumski. Probably the weak light (if the bike had been equipped with such) wouldn't have made one iota (like that word?) of difference..

the city employer driving the gator wasn't aware of said bicyclist being on the road at 6:45am..it's still dark out, even
wtih the recent time change. Mr. Bicyclist was distracted by two buses, and maybe he didn't pay attention of where
he was going until it was too late.

Mr Gator wasn't expecting to see a bicyclist at 6:45 am so he didn't bother to stop at the stop sign but carried on
doing what he was doing at the time.
Assignement of blame is going to be hard to figure out in this case..no serious injures.
Bicycle rider: no front light/distracted, didn't see gator coming until it was too late

Mr Gator driver: didn't expect to see Mr bicyclist at that time in the morning, so he (probably)rolled through the stop sign.
Who is really guilty. here.or is it a case of 50-50 being at fault. No pictures and the cops were not informed of the stop
sign, not that it would have made any difference, because the cops would need to be there to catch Mr.Gator rolling
through the stop sign..if that actually happened.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

carverman said:


> I like your intuitive analysis of what may have happened. Are you an insurance investigator?


I have worked for insurance companies, but I am a lawyer, not an investigator. Sometimes the two overlap. Not a lawyer in Ontario, although I went to law school there.


----------



## Prospector (Jul 25, 2014)

Just a question - was the bicycle on the sidewalk or the travelled portion of the road?

The highway traffic act makes it pretty clear that it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. I am not sure if this would affect the tort or not, and I am not sure what rights a small tractor has to be on the sidewalk (Is it a vehicle under the HTA? Does the HTA allow vehicles engaged in maintenance activities on the sidewalk?)


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Prospector said:


> Just a question - was the bicycle on the sidewalk or the travelled portion of the road?
> 
> The highway traffic act makes it pretty clear that it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. I am not sure if this would affect the tort or not, and I am not sure what rights a small tractor has to be on the sidewalk (Is it a vehicle under the HTA? Does the HTA allow vehicles engaged in maintenance activities on the sidewalk?)


As I sought to point out in my last post dealing with failure to display a light, perhaps in breach of the law, "legal" v. "illegal" has little to do with tort analysis. The same applies to riding a bike on a sidewalk, or driving an ATV where it does not belong, etc. Rather, the focus of the tort/negligence analysis is on duty of care, standard of care, breach of duty, etc. A failure to observe a relevant law might be an indicator of negligence, that is all.

To illustrate my point, let's say that it's "illegal" to ride on the sidewalk. Does that mean that sidewalk cyclists are fair game and motorists can run them down at will and face no tort liability? Can the driver of a slow-moving vehicle negligently T-bone a vehicle being driven slightly above the speed limit, but escape liability because of the illegal speeding? Probably not.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Prospector said:


> Just a question - was the bicycle on the sidewalk or the travelled portion of the road?
> 
> The highway traffic act makes it pretty clear that it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. I am not sure if this would affect the tort or not, and I am not sure what rights a small tractor has to be on the sidewalk (Is it a vehicle under the HTA? Does the HTA allow vehicles engaged in maintenance activities on the sidewalk?)


Yes, the city bylaws I think, apply in the case of a city employee driving a narrow blade Gator to clear sidewalks of ice and snow.
See them here in Ottawa all the time after a snow, because nobody is going to shovel the sidewalks on city property.
The maintenance vehicle would be covered by city insurance if it occidentally hits a pedestrian, I would think.

In this particular discussed case, the gator could have been coming out between the two parked buses, (and maybe that was the distraction) the OP was talking about. If the gator came out at right angles between the parked buses, then neither the bicyclist or the gator driver would see each other until the moment of collision, regardless of any lights..of course this is all speculation.... since we don't really know what happened...at T+ 1 second.


----------



## jdc (Feb 1, 2016)

Rumski24 said:


> I was distract for a second as I heard loud chatter from two parked buses on the left. I look ahead and there's that Gator, smoked him head on.


So, you admit that you were distracted and not paying attention, and ran into him. How is this the other guy's fault?


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

jdc said:


> So, you admit that you were distracted and not paying attention, and ran into him. How is this the other guy's fault?


There is the suggestion the Gator operator did not stop at a stop sign. If he ran the stop sign, then it might be that his failure to observe the rules of the road played a role in causation. 

The whole matter is very fact-specific and none of us sitting at our computers can pronounce with much authority upon the matter, or say what the outcome should be if it went to trial. From what we can glean from the bits and pieces submitted by the OP - who has candidly admitted to facts that smack of contributory negligence at least - all we can say is the matter is not crystal clear. 

Were I in Rumski's shoes, I would take the bit of advice offered here, for what little it is worth, re-visit the accident scene, do my best to recall exactly how events unfolded, engage in a modicum of reconstruction and do my best to make an objective analysis of the facts and applicable law. If, at the end of that exercise, I believed I had an arguable case that the city at least shared some blame, I would put it to the city. The city might respond with "See ya' in court." Then one would have to make a more thorough analysis and decide whether a lawsuit would be worth it. 

The facts as given suggest that the measure of damages is modest. Damage to the bike, some soft tissue leg injury, a bit of past wage loss. Are there any ongoing sx or has the injury fully resolved? At least one medical report from a gp outlining the accident injuries, their nature, prognosis, etc., would be necessary, even in Small Claims Court. It sounds like too low a quantum to make retaining counsel worthwhile, although using counsel to send a "demand letter" might be worthwhile if it looks like there is a cause of action and damages beyond the _de minimis_ level.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> The facts as given suggest that the measure of damages is modest. Damage to the bike, some soft tissue leg injury, a bit of past wage loss. Are there any ongoing sx or has the injury fully resolved? At least one medical report from a gp outlining the accident injuries, their nature, prognosis, etc., would be necessary, even in Small Claims Court. It sounds like too low a quantum to make retaining counsel worthwhile, although using counsel to send a "demand letter" might be worthwhile if it looks like there is a cause of action and damages beyond the _de minimis_ level.


Yes, I tend to agree that it may not be worth the aggravation. However, he could consult with a pro bono lawyer and see what he says.


----------



## Rumski24 (Mar 15, 2016)

Thanks for the input folks,

I think I used the wrong choice of words when I said I was "distracted". When you hear something and see a person to the left you tend to take notice, I'd say I was more paying attention to my surroundings. I did see that Gator prior to that, fully aware. Unfortunately for me he just kept cruising along right into me. Foolish of me to assume he would stop. There are street lights in the area, it's dawn, yes I'm at fault for not having a light. Travelling just to the right of the centre line of the road and in clear view, I was not tight to the curb where his and my view would of been partially obstructed, poles, posts and large parking signs. 

There are two stops signs, one for the street tracks (street cars not operational in this area due to construction) and then roughly another 15 to 20 feet another stop sign before turning left or right onto the street (Street B) I was on. I have pictures of the aftermath. From the Gators perspective, turning left into my right of way path: 

Driving southbound on Street A, Stop sign for street car tracks, starts turning left slightly going on the wrong side of Street A, hits the apex (tight to the curb on the left side) now he's ignored the 2nd stop sign and heading eastbound on Street B. As soon as he hits Street B depending on speed/braking distance he hits me practically head on. There is a bit of an angle, perhaps 20 to 30 degrees.

In the photos I took, his rear tire is roughly 8 to 12 feet away from the curb of Street B. My bike bounced back 15 to 20 feet! He is on the wrong side of the road! Can't see the buses in the photo but there where there parked, hence why he's probably cutting the corner and driving on the wrong side of the road and clearly not seeing me. I wonder if I did have a light if I was still screwed!

There are two cameras on a building owned by the city in that location of the accident. I hoping they picked up the footage. So I can see what really happened. Things happened so quickly.

Haven't gone to work this week. Starting to get strange pain in my leg last night, almost like a sharp pain/ache that kicks in when it wants or when I activate my quad plus back pain/stiffness. Was at a doctor early during the day. Not a good experience. Didn't check my leg, had me bend over and touch my toes and then provide me with a gel prescription. She said she doesn't know much about this type of accident and pond me off to a Chiropractor. Figured that was strange. Booked another doctor for tomorrow to get a better diagnoses and cancelled the Chiro.

Also awaiting paperwork from my lawyer. Leaning towards that route. Hope this clarifies things a bit better. Pretty stressful situation. My gf and parents want me to continue with the lawyer. Some friends say I got lucky and should cut my loses and move on. My job is a physical one and I need my agility and strength to do it. See what happens I guess.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Rumski24 said:


> Thanks for the input folks,
> 
> I think I used the wrong choice of words when I said I was "distracted". When you hear something and see a person to the left you tend to take notice, I'd say I was more paying attention to my surroundings. I did see that Gator prior to that, fully aware. Unfortunately for me he just kept cruising along right into me. Foolish of me to assume he would stop. There are street lights in the area, it's dawn, yes I'm at fault for not having a light. Travelling just to the right of the centre line of the road and in clear view, I was not tight to the curb where his and my view would of been partially obstructed, poles, posts and large parking signs.
> 
> ...


If he was not paying attention, he probably wouldn't have seen you with the weak lights that most bicycles have, unless you happend to have had a 
million candle power flashing front light.



> Haven't gone to work this week. Starting to get strange pain in my leg last night, almost like a sharp pain/ache that kicks in when it wants or when I activate my quad plus back pain/stiffness. Was at a doctor early during the day. Not a good experience. Didn't check my leg, had me bend over and touch my toes and then provide me with a gel prescription. She said she doesn't know much about this type of accident and *pond me off to a Chiropractor. Figured that was strange. Booked another doctor for tomorrow to get a better diagnoses and cancelled the Chiro.
> *
> Also awaiting paperwork from my lawyer. Leaning towards that route. Hope this clarifies things a bit better. Pretty stressful situation. My gf and parents want me to continue with the lawyer. Some friends say I got lucky and should cut my loses and move on. My job is a physical one and I need my agility and strength to do it. See what happens I guess.


Thanks for the details. This changes everything.

Just heard on Global news tonight Of a pedestrian, again in TORONTO getting hit by a wayward bus that killed one of the dogs he was walking
with, broke his ribs , and seriously crushed one of his legs. He's suing for a MILLION. 
While your case may not be as severe, soft tissue/muscle injury can lead to more permanent type of leg condition in the months ahead, so keep seek any medical help you may require
and find a lawyer to take on your case..there are lots of accident injury lawyers around that will take your case on a contingency basis. Wishing you good luck in settling your case.


----------

