- 注册
- 2002-10-07
- 消息
- 402,190
- 荣誉分数
- 76
- 声望点数
- 0
Arthur Matheson lay in a hospital bed in a coma, his body broken.
The Perth cattle and sheep farmer had suffered a catastrophic brain injury. His leg was broken so badly that at first doctors thought they might have to cut if off. There were fractures to his arm, a rib and vertebrae.
He had been airlifted to the Ottawa Hospital’s Civic campus after being rammed by a hit-and-run driver as Matheson rode his farm ATV the 100 yards between his driveway and a gate into the field where his sheep had been grazing.
The ATV ride would normally take 30 seconds or less on the gravel concession road that runs past the farm.
“I didn’t know if he’d live, walk or talk again,” says his wife, Diane Matheson. “We didn’t know from one minute to the next if he was going to be there for us or whether he was going to be paralyzed.”
Now, six years later, Matheson is back on the farm that has been in his family for five generations, trying to do the things that were once routine. He still gets emotional when his wife talks about seeing him in hospital and wondering whether he would live or die.
These days, nothing is easy.
Matheson, 56, struggles with memory loss and gets frustrated easily. He frequently needs to write down the chores he needs to do lest he forget them.
There are the pills for his brain injury. The leg that was so badly shattered that it needed a metal plate and pins to put it back together again is still weak; while the arm he broke still aches some days.
And in a decision that could have implications for farmers across the province, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled last week that Matheson wouldn’t be able to sue the careless driver who was sent to jail for hitting him because the ATV that Matheson was riding wasn’t properly insured.
Matheson is now blocked from seeking damages, compensation for lost income and some other benefits.
He was also handed a $55,000 bill to cover the legal costs of the other driver and two insurance companies since he brought the matter to court and lost.
“I think the only thing that would make it worse is if I got a bill to repair the dent in his truck,” said Matheson, who spent three weeks in a coma after the collision and five months in hospital after the crash.
“He’s walking away but I’m getting a bill from the courts,” he said. “It just seems so wrong.”
The case centred on whether Matheson’s ATV met the definition of a “self propelled implement of husbandry.”
Was it a piece of farm equipment like a tractor or combine, exempt from Ontario’s Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act? Or was it an off-road vehicle, and subject to the same insurance requirements as a car or truck?
Matheson had only ever used the 1986 Honda TRX 200 for farm purposes. Since it was for farm use only, he said he believed it didn’t need additional insurance beyond his farm policy.
At least one judge agreed. In April 2013, Ontario Superior Court Justice Kenneth Pedlar ruled that ATVs met the definition of a “self propelled implement of husbandry” when driven for farm purposes and that their drivers were protected from the “very harsh” civil penalty that prevented those without insurance from seeking damages.
According to Pedlar, Ontario laws were out of date and weren’t keeping pace with the changing nature of farming. Pedlar also concluded that the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act was intended to protect innocent victims from other’s negligence.
That was a mistake, according to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal ruled Pedlar “lost sight of the goal of determining the intent of the legislature” with his interpretation of what the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act was meant to accomplish.
“The legislative means of ensuring universal insurance would be rendered nugatory if they were made applicable only to those who cause accidents,” wrote the Court of Appeal. “The clear legislative intent is that the prospect of not being able to recover damages or statutory accident benefits gives vehicle owners good reason to purchase insurance before any accident has taken place.
“The provisions, even if considered ‘very harsh’, must be enforced,” the appeal court ruled.
It concluded that the ATV, despite being used widely by farmers, wasn’t manufactured, designed, redesigned, converted or reconstructed for a specific use in farming.
Matheson’s lawyer, Bob Houston, said the Court of Appeal has sent a clear message to farmers. If they are going to take their ATVs off their property, even just to cross a road, they better have insurance.
Paul Muirhead, the lawyer for the driver who hit Matheson and his insurance company, said the Court of Appeal decision simply reinforced the law as it already existed. If the original decision had stood, it would have created a situation where any farmer in Ontario could drive an ATV onto a public road without insurance.
Muirhead added that Matheson’s insurance agent filed an affidavit stating he warned Matheson he needed insurance if he took the ATV off the farm and Matheson said he’d “take his chances” without it, although Matheson said he had no recollection of any such conversation.
Daniel Strigberger, a Waterloo lawyer who specializes in insurance law, said the decision may seem unfair but the court needed to consider if the tables had been turned and Matheson had hit someone while driving the ATV.
“It has to be harsh in some cases or more people will take chances on insurance. It’s kind of done what it’s supposed to do, it’s just unfortunate people get caught up in it for the wrong reasons,” said Strigberger.
aseymour@ottawacitizen.com
Twitter.com/andrew_seymour
查看原文...
The Perth cattle and sheep farmer had suffered a catastrophic brain injury. His leg was broken so badly that at first doctors thought they might have to cut if off. There were fractures to his arm, a rib and vertebrae.
He had been airlifted to the Ottawa Hospital’s Civic campus after being rammed by a hit-and-run driver as Matheson rode his farm ATV the 100 yards between his driveway and a gate into the field where his sheep had been grazing.
The ATV ride would normally take 30 seconds or less on the gravel concession road that runs past the farm.
“I didn’t know if he’d live, walk or talk again,” says his wife, Diane Matheson. “We didn’t know from one minute to the next if he was going to be there for us or whether he was going to be paralyzed.”
Now, six years later, Matheson is back on the farm that has been in his family for five generations, trying to do the things that were once routine. He still gets emotional when his wife talks about seeing him in hospital and wondering whether he would live or die.
These days, nothing is easy.
Matheson, 56, struggles with memory loss and gets frustrated easily. He frequently needs to write down the chores he needs to do lest he forget them.
There are the pills for his brain injury. The leg that was so badly shattered that it needed a metal plate and pins to put it back together again is still weak; while the arm he broke still aches some days.
And in a decision that could have implications for farmers across the province, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled last week that Matheson wouldn’t be able to sue the careless driver who was sent to jail for hitting him because the ATV that Matheson was riding wasn’t properly insured.
Matheson is now blocked from seeking damages, compensation for lost income and some other benefits.
He was also handed a $55,000 bill to cover the legal costs of the other driver and two insurance companies since he brought the matter to court and lost.
“I think the only thing that would make it worse is if I got a bill to repair the dent in his truck,” said Matheson, who spent three weeks in a coma after the collision and five months in hospital after the crash.
“He’s walking away but I’m getting a bill from the courts,” he said. “It just seems so wrong.”
The case centred on whether Matheson’s ATV met the definition of a “self propelled implement of husbandry.”
Was it a piece of farm equipment like a tractor or combine, exempt from Ontario’s Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act? Or was it an off-road vehicle, and subject to the same insurance requirements as a car or truck?
Matheson had only ever used the 1986 Honda TRX 200 for farm purposes. Since it was for farm use only, he said he believed it didn’t need additional insurance beyond his farm policy.
At least one judge agreed. In April 2013, Ontario Superior Court Justice Kenneth Pedlar ruled that ATVs met the definition of a “self propelled implement of husbandry” when driven for farm purposes and that their drivers were protected from the “very harsh” civil penalty that prevented those without insurance from seeking damages.
According to Pedlar, Ontario laws were out of date and weren’t keeping pace with the changing nature of farming. Pedlar also concluded that the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act was intended to protect innocent victims from other’s negligence.
That was a mistake, according to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal ruled Pedlar “lost sight of the goal of determining the intent of the legislature” with his interpretation of what the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act was meant to accomplish.
“The legislative means of ensuring universal insurance would be rendered nugatory if they were made applicable only to those who cause accidents,” wrote the Court of Appeal. “The clear legislative intent is that the prospect of not being able to recover damages or statutory accident benefits gives vehicle owners good reason to purchase insurance before any accident has taken place.
“The provisions, even if considered ‘very harsh’, must be enforced,” the appeal court ruled.
It concluded that the ATV, despite being used widely by farmers, wasn’t manufactured, designed, redesigned, converted or reconstructed for a specific use in farming.
Matheson’s lawyer, Bob Houston, said the Court of Appeal has sent a clear message to farmers. If they are going to take their ATVs off their property, even just to cross a road, they better have insurance.
Paul Muirhead, the lawyer for the driver who hit Matheson and his insurance company, said the Court of Appeal decision simply reinforced the law as it already existed. If the original decision had stood, it would have created a situation where any farmer in Ontario could drive an ATV onto a public road without insurance.
Muirhead added that Matheson’s insurance agent filed an affidavit stating he warned Matheson he needed insurance if he took the ATV off the farm and Matheson said he’d “take his chances” without it, although Matheson said he had no recollection of any such conversation.
Daniel Strigberger, a Waterloo lawyer who specializes in insurance law, said the decision may seem unfair but the court needed to consider if the tables had been turned and Matheson had hit someone while driving the ATV.
“It has to be harsh in some cases or more people will take chances on insurance. It’s kind of done what it’s supposed to do, it’s just unfortunate people get caught up in it for the wrong reasons,” said Strigberger.
aseymour@ottawacitizen.com
Twitter.com/andrew_seymour
查看原文...
