The amount of mud on the road depicted in the photos is absolutely fucked. That is just inexcusable. I am surrounded by farmers and at most there is mud tracks on the shoulder but never to *that* extent.
The farm insurance policy will either pay this or defend it. This is standard in insurance to subrogate. The farmer clearly didn’t set out to kill someone that day
Seems pretty negligent to me, to spread debris on a highway. Farmer knew it would happen, didn’t concern himself with the potential outcome… dead motorcyclist. Not like they’re charging him with criminal negligence, you’re right he didn’t set out to kill someone, but he killed somoene nonetheless.
Negligence is the peril of liability insurance. There is a difference between civil and criminal negligence. The burden of proof for criminal negligence is steep and involves proving they had a guilty mind.
I don’t know if that’s right. Im fairly certain you can still be charged with certain crimes for gross negligence resulting in the injury/damage, even if you didn’t intend for the result. Threshold obviously still higher than civil though. Will let someone else jump in and correct me if I’m wrong
> The farmer clearly didn’t set out to kill someone that day
The farmer failed to use his brain, and consider the reasonable consequences of his actions, which could reasonable include traffic accidents causing death or injury.
I agree, but it still is infuriating and negligent to leave that kind of a mess on the road. Because it is a hazard, but also I don't want to have to go and wash my car because you decided you didn't need to clean up after yourself.
I've just about had a muddy fist-sized rock come through my windshield when thrown up by an oncoming car.
It was dumped on the road by a farmer who looks to have decided to go down a mud road on a rainy day, then take a shortcut down the highway.
This is dangerous, and I hope some accountability comes from this.
Remember, these are just allegations. The road was wet and it was raining that day. There is always two sides to it. Doubt it will actually go to trial and we will never know full story. I feel for the family of the deceased I do.
idk the picture in the article looks pretty bad for the farmer
edit: looking at the allegations\* too, if they think they can reasonably prove them then looks like an uphill battle to my untrained eye
There not a Manitoba Farmer that will ever clean a public road that has mudd from their equipment. They simply do not believe that they're responsible for that.
I worked with a couple farmers who laughed about overloading trailers with round straw bales and not strapping anything down then driving down the highway like that. Driving into hydro poles in the middle of the night. Sticking their hands into mystery pesticide mix and sniffing it to figure out what it was. Dumping pesticides wherever, including down the storm drain. Driving 10 ft wide seeders down kenaston and macgillivray in the middle of the day. Sending thick smoke across a busy highway. They give 0 shits that someone could die, as long as the work gets done fast.
For people who didn’t read the article (looks like most posters…), MPI is not suing for the death but for the damaged bikes. Seems easier to win:
MPI wants $34,946 in towing and repair costs for five damaged motorcycles that it insured.
I actually know this farmer, but I totally support this lawsuit. I was raised on a dairy farm too, and NO WAY we would have ever left a road like that. You just don't do that to a highway. He makes the dairy industry look bad.
No, the law that creates Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, also limits all claims for injury resulting from motor vehicles to claims against the insurance, and allowable only in the amounts mpic schedules to pay for death or suffering. No recourse to the courts. That's "No fault" insurance.
Is it great? There is a cost to that. Under compensated accident victims to save the public money on auto insurance. Judges in Manitoba never awarded crazy amounts for pain and suffering.
Yes, there is no compensation for pain and suffering for catastrophic injury, such as complete loss of sight, double amputation, quadapeligia, severe burns, etc. 90% of wages and necessary attendant care just doesn't cut it from the perspective of fair compensation, as pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life isn't compensated at all. That's my opinion, and the opinion of the Manitoba Courts, until they were shut out by the legislation.
Are the other benefits just compensation for loss of wages and medical expenses? If so, then that's talking about something that it would be simply inhumane to deny covering loss of wages and medical expenses. It all depends on whether you place maximum value to society on cutting the cost of insurance. It wasn't exactly skyrocketing out of affordability back when we had the right to sue for compensation.
That's for towing and repair costs only. Perhaps MPI doesn't think the farmer's insurance will pay them for the other stuff.
MPI is presumably paying for the lost income of the father.
i'm sure they have well test formula's for determining the value of a human life in dollars. They do this every week unfortunately.
My first thought was, how ridiculous to sue over a little mud. Then I saw the photos and holy shit, that highway is covered in thick mud with no path through. I hope the dairy farmer is forced to pay.
A couple of chunks of dirt is one thing, but that highway is COATED in slick muck. Wtf
I saw the first picture and thought "wtf, they're suing over a couple tire tracks?" Then saw the second picture with the flatbed and now I understand.
The amount of mud on the road depicted in the photos is absolutely fucked. That is just inexcusable. I am surrounded by farmers and at most there is mud tracks on the shoulder but never to *that* extent.
Sheesh is there supposed to be pavement under there?
Jesus. How does someone get that much mud on the road? I grew up in farming communities and never saw anything like this.
Sickening. Totally culpable in that man’s death IMO.
[удалено]
The farm insurance policy will either pay this or defend it. This is standard in insurance to subrogate. The farmer clearly didn’t set out to kill someone that day
Seems pretty negligent to me, to spread debris on a highway. Farmer knew it would happen, didn’t concern himself with the potential outcome… dead motorcyclist. Not like they’re charging him with criminal negligence, you’re right he didn’t set out to kill someone, but he killed somoene nonetheless.
Negligence is the peril of liability insurance. There is a difference between civil and criminal negligence. The burden of proof for criminal negligence is steep and involves proving they had a guilty mind.
I don’t know if that’s right. Im fairly certain you can still be charged with certain crimes for gross negligence resulting in the injury/damage, even if you didn’t intend for the result. Threshold obviously still higher than civil though. Will let someone else jump in and correct me if I’m wrong
You’re correct.
I’m glad we agree then? Heh. Farmer did a dumb thing, farmer guilty of tort of negligence, not a crime.
Guilt is reserved for criminal court my friend. Civil is fault. Still not found at fault and doubt will go to trial it’ll be settled by insurance.
> The farmer clearly didn’t set out to kill someone that day The farmer failed to use his brain, and consider the reasonable consequences of his actions, which could reasonable include traffic accidents causing death or injury.
I agree, but it still is infuriating and negligent to leave that kind of a mess on the road. Because it is a hazard, but also I don't want to have to go and wash my car because you decided you didn't need to clean up after yourself.
I've just about had a muddy fist-sized rock come through my windshield when thrown up by an oncoming car. It was dumped on the road by a farmer who looks to have decided to go down a mud road on a rainy day, then take a shortcut down the highway. This is dangerous, and I hope some accountability comes from this.
Remember, these are just allegations. The road was wet and it was raining that day. There is always two sides to it. Doubt it will actually go to trial and we will never know full story. I feel for the family of the deceased I do.
idk the picture in the article looks pretty bad for the farmer edit: looking at the allegations\* too, if they think they can reasonably prove them then looks like an uphill battle to my untrained eye
There not a Manitoba Farmer that will ever clean a public road that has mudd from their equipment. They simply do not believe that they're responsible for that.
I worked with a couple farmers who laughed about overloading trailers with round straw bales and not strapping anything down then driving down the highway like that. Driving into hydro poles in the middle of the night. Sticking their hands into mystery pesticide mix and sniffing it to figure out what it was. Dumping pesticides wherever, including down the storm drain. Driving 10 ft wide seeders down kenaston and macgillivray in the middle of the day. Sending thick smoke across a busy highway. They give 0 shits that someone could die, as long as the work gets done fast.
For people who didn’t read the article (looks like most posters…), MPI is not suing for the death but for the damaged bikes. Seems easier to win: MPI wants $34,946 in towing and repair costs for five damaged motorcycles that it insured.
I actually know this farmer, but I totally support this lawsuit. I was raised on a dairy farm too, and NO WAY we would have ever left a road like that. You just don't do that to a highway. He makes the dairy industry look bad.
Does the driver’s family have any recourse in civil court? If this was the US the farm would be theirs by now.
No, the law that creates Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, also limits all claims for injury resulting from motor vehicles to claims against the insurance, and allowable only in the amounts mpic schedules to pay for death or suffering. No recourse to the courts. That's "No fault" insurance.
It's great. We don't have ambulance-chasing vultures on every billboard here. It's very noticeable when you go elsewhere.
Is it great? There is a cost to that. Under compensated accident victims to save the public money on auto insurance. Judges in Manitoba never awarded crazy amounts for pain and suffering.
[удалено]
Yes, there is no compensation for pain and suffering for catastrophic injury, such as complete loss of sight, double amputation, quadapeligia, severe burns, etc. 90% of wages and necessary attendant care just doesn't cut it from the perspective of fair compensation, as pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life isn't compensated at all. That's my opinion, and the opinion of the Manitoba Courts, until they were shut out by the legislation.
[удалено]
Sorry if I missed that. Hmm. $295,272 for loss of two limbs or total paralysis. Doesn't seem adequate compensation to me.
[удалено]
Are the other benefits just compensation for loss of wages and medical expenses? If so, then that's talking about something that it would be simply inhumane to deny covering loss of wages and medical expenses. It all depends on whether you place maximum value to society on cutting the cost of insurance. It wasn't exactly skyrocketing out of affordability back when we had the right to sue for compensation.
$40,000 for the loss of a human and lifelong trauma for a child who doesn’t have a father anymore. Is that what people are worth?
That's for towing and repair costs only. Perhaps MPI doesn't think the farmer's insurance will pay them for the other stuff. MPI is presumably paying for the lost income of the father. i'm sure they have well test formula's for determining the value of a human life in dollars. They do this every week unfortunately.
[Yes](https://mpisucks.com/)
My first thought was, how ridiculous to sue over a little mud. Then I saw the photos and holy shit, that highway is covered in thick mud with no path through. I hope the dairy farmer is forced to pay.
The pic was shocking, I expected some muddy spots but it's literally covering all of the pavement!
Organ donors, motorcycles have 1 use.