In May 2016, an Ontario court ruled that a man rendered quadriplegic after a mountain biking accident won his battle to hold the Ontario municipality that operated the adventure park fully liable for his injuries. This Ontario Court of Appeal Decision Could Hurt Motorcyclists!

"The incident occurred in August 2008 when Campbell, then 43, his wife and two children visited the Bruce Peninsula Mountain Bike Adventure Park, which featured bike trails and an area with 10 wooden obstacles for riders to learn trail riding. Signs warned riders to ride within their abilities.

Campbell, who was an experienced mountain biker, was attempting to tackle an obstacle known as Free Fall but didn't make it. In the ensuing tumble, he went over the handlebars and landed on his head, breaking his neck. " Via Winnipeg Free Press

Attached below is a reprinted article from the Canadian Press that was written by Colin Perkel and published in a number of newspapers across the country in May.

First of all, let me comment that I do not want to take anything away from Mr. Campbell and his family. His accident is tragic and has lifelong consequences that I cannot imagine having to live with.

Why does this court ruling matter?

Every time a court allows someone or some group to sue for money, the insurance industry responds by cancelling coverage and dramatically increasing rates. The logic is that there is now greater risk that someone will sue and win a big settlement.

Imagine you own a business that provides on-site motorcycle activities. You do everything you think you can to ensure it is safe. However, someone using a similar location hurts themselves and that person or their family decides to sue. Whether the person suing wins or not, the insurance industry now refuses to insure your business and recommends you close.

Let’s say instead of the Bruce Peninsula Mountain Bike Adventure Park, you are the Bruce Peninsula Motorcycle Adventure Park( fictitious company). You use the same insurance company as your neighbour the Bike Park people. Do you think that you are immune to being sued? Unfortunately, the ruling cited below is now a precedence. It can be viewed that any user can now sue you. There are a lot of hungry lawyers out there looking to sue somebody. Not all are sharks. A few are though. You know the ones that use slogans like “YOU DON’T PAY UNLESS WE WIN MONEY FOR YOU”. You even see the high heel, tight dress attractive models at the big Toronto Motorcycle Shows handing out brochures on how to sue someone.

As the Bruce Peninsula Motorcycle Adventure Park (again a fictional company), you have to decide if you can afford the inevitable insurance cost increase and if your customers are willing to continue coming if your prices have to increase to cover the cost of your insurance. It isn't just the adventure sports businesses that could suffer. It could include racing organizations, kids sports organizations and any other body or commercial business that requires ‘event’ insurance to cover liability.

While I wish the Campbell family all the best in the future, I hate that they have started a very ugly ball rolling down a very steep hill. Your thoughts?

Ontario county liable for catastrophic trail biker injuries, court rules

By Colin Perkel

TORONTO — A man rendered quadriplegic after a mountain biking accident won his battle Tuesday to hold the Ontario municipality that operated the adventure park fully liable for his injuries.

In its decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected an appeal by the municipal County of Bruce that it was not at fault, and that the victim, Stephen Campbell, was at least partly responsible for his catastrophic injuries.

"The reality is that several riders had been injured, including seriously injured, on the wooden obstacles in the trials area before (Campbell's) accident," the Appeal Court said.

"Had the municipality adequately monitored previous accidents and been aware of the number of accidents at the park — and on Free Fall in particular — actions would have been taken that would have prevented (Campbell's) injuries."

The incident occurred in August 2008 when Campbell, then 43, his wife and two children visited the Bruce Peninsula Mountain Bike Adventure Park, which featured bike trails and an area with 10 wooden obstacles for riders to learn trail riding. Signs warned riders to ride within their abilities.

Campbell, who was an experienced mountain biker, was attempting to tackle an obstacle known as Free Fall, but didn't make it. In the ensuing tumble, he went over the handlebars and landed on his head, breaking his neck.

The main issue at trial, closely watched by other public authorities, was whether the county had taken sufficient care to ensure the safety of park users.

Court documents show the municipality had no tracking mechanism of incidents before the Campbell mishap, but ambulances had been called to the park at least seven times. In one case, three months before the Campbell incident, paramedics responded to a man who had broken his neck tackling a more difficult obstacle than Free Fall.

After a seven-day hearing, Superior Court Justice Marc Garson ruled last January that the municipality had failed in its duty of care. Among other things, Garson found Bruce had failed to post proper warning signs and had not properly monitored risks and injuries at the park.

The judge also decided Campbell had not been negligent in tackling the obstacle or in how he tried to salvage the situation when he realized he was falling.

In its appeal, the municipality argued in part its safety measures were reasonable, and that mountain biking is inherently risky.

"There is no doubt that (Campbell), an experienced mountain biker, assumed the risk of riding on the bicycle trails in the park," the Appeal Court said.

At the same time, the court found it unreasonable to expect a rider learning to tackle an obstacle to know beforehand the skills needed to succeed.

"On the question of what the appellant could have done differently, the trial judge was clear and concise," the court said.

"There were no instructional signs, no requirements to complete an easy trail ... no warning of serious injury, and no instruction on how to extricate oneself from the feature."

The Appeal Court agreed with the trial judge that Campbell had not been careless in either his decision to try to ride Free Fall or in his actions to try to prevent a fall.

The Canadian Press