2015-10-07 P & R Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I Check Out The HIIII -Sled Safe '1 The lighting standard was unguarded and the hill was particularly slippery at the time of the accident. The accident occurred in the evening and there was a sin- y gle light at the top of the hill. The court referred to a coroner's inquest report con- cerning oncerning a fatal toboggan accident in Toronto,which stated: 4. Sloped areas,suitable for winter play such as tobogganing and the like,should be located and landscaped so as to be free of obstacles. 5. Sloped areas unsuitable for tobogganing and the like should ' be marked and fenced or landscaped to prevent such use and insure safe alternative use. The court also referred to a portion of the Parks Department's 1977 Manual of Policies and Procedures: All potential tobogganing hills are to be identified and either made safe or impossible to use. Protection should be given to tobog- ganers who are unable to control their units and may possibly strike a tree or a fixed structure. Picnic tables should be moved out of the path of tobogganing,and care should be taken to remove any haz- ardous objects such as tree stumps,park benches,barbecue stands, T rails,or removable concrete curbs. Bales of straw should be tied to trees or structures such as drinking fountains or projecting culverts to minimize injury. A considerable amount of maintenance is neces- sary as bales deteriorate,are set on fire,and if left unattended,disap- pear under accumulations of snow,or freeze into solid blocks. The court concluded that the City had not acted properly because no protec- tive barrier had been placed around the light standard. The court also said that because the hill had become so slippery,the City should have sanded it. Then the court considered whether the injured parties had voluntarily assumed the risk when they decided to go tobogganing at night. The City argued that the_parties had assumed the risk because there was a sign posted at the bot- tom ottom of the hill which stated'Tobogganing or sleigh riding at your own risk". However,the injured parties had approached the hill from the top and not from the base and therefore did not pass by the sign;also,only a part of the light pole was visible from the top of the hill,so the injured parties could not tell that the base was unprotected.Therefore,the court said,the injured parties could not be held to have assumed the risk The court did not determine that the injured parties had been contributonly negligent. Whether they should have noticed that the hill was icy and been cap- able of determining that it posed a hazard was not addressed by the court—sug- gesting that this was not expected of them. A Community Resource Guide Page 22