News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

I am interested to see if litigation will finally push the TTC et al. to make some progress on this.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ttc-lawsuit-woman-pushed-subway-tracks-1.6452486

The claim says that while the assailant who pushed Al-Balushi onto the tracks was not employed by or affiliated with the TTC, the TTC is liable for the incident.

"The TTC is liable for the injuries that Shamsa sustained, in that it failed to implement sufficient safety protocols on the subway platform; failed to provide regular supervision of the passengers; did not have adequate surveillance of the platform; failed to promptly respond to the incident," the claim says.
Click to expand...
 
Sometimes you just have to laugh

https://www.cp24.com/news/ttc-says-...e-to-platform-edge-in-legal-defence-1.5938592

The TTC says a woman now suing it for negligence after she was pushed onto the tracks at Bloor-Yonge station two months ago was negligent herself because she was standing too close to the platform’s edge.
Click to expand...

The TTC’s lawyers also argue that Al-Balushi “knew or was familiar” with her alleged attacker and “failed to remove herself from a potential situation of danger.”

Singer says “there’s no truth” to the allegation his client knew Frayne.

“The TTC is grasping at straws,” he said.
Click to expand...

Singer says the main thrust of his argument should the suit go to trial is that the number of people falling into tracks over the years meant the TTC should have implemented platform edge doors at its stations.
Click to expand...
 
TTC's response was a disgrace, and I couldn't agree more with the plaintiff's lawyer.
From the article:
The TTC’s statement of defence also states that Al-Balushi should not have been travelling alone on public transit “when she knew or ought to have known that it was unsafe for her to do so.”
Click to expand...
If the TTC says it's unsafe to ride alone, I think they're admitting they have a serious problem. I would bet their lawyer's statement will be used against them.
 
felix123 said:
TTC's response was a disgrace, and I couldn't agree more with the plaintiff's lawyer.
From the article:

If the TTC says it's unsafe to ride alone, I think they're admitting they have a serious problem. I would bet their lawyer's statement will be used against them.
Click to expand...
True on that point, but theres validity on their initial rebuttal in that you can only do so much reasonably to try to stop stupid (standing at the edge of the platform dispute visual and tactile warnings) its sort of like that lady who sued McDonald's for spilling a hot cup of coffee on herself...
 
cplchanb said:
True on that point, but theres validity on their initial rebuttal in that you can only do so much reasonably to try to stop stupid (standing at the edge of the platform dispute visual and tactile warnings) its sort of like that lady who sued McDonald's for spilling a hot cup of coffee on herself...
Click to expand...
oooh youre going to trigger lots of lawyers by saying that.

that lawsuit was completely legitimate, Mcdonalds brewed their coffee way hotter that would be reasonably expected.

and even in the cameras for the subway you can see her standing back of the tactile strips.
 
generalcanada said:
oooh youre going to trigger lots of lawyers by saying that.

that lawsuit was completely legitimate, Mcdonalds brewed their coffee way hotter that would be reasonably expected.

and even in the cameras for the subway you can see her standing back of the tactile strips.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the McDonald's lawsuit was completely legitimate and warranted.

On this front with the TTC, though. They've done sufficiently well to keep passengers away from falling into the tracks. Could it be better if we had platform screen doors? Sure. But then we should be advocating the same in all GO and VIA rail station platforms. The TTC isn't the only authority that has the possibility of folks falling into tracks.

It's not the TTC's fault for someone pushing the lady onto the tracks.
 
cplchanb said:
True on that point, but theres validity on their initial rebuttal in that you can only do so much reasonably to try to stop stupid (standing at the edge of the platform dispute visual and tactile warnings) its sort of like that lady who sued McDonald's for spilling a hot cup of coffee on herself...
Click to expand...
She was standing behind the yellow tactile tiles. And it is not like the McDonald's case, because Al-Balushi didn't walk nor slip over the platform edge. She just stood there, behind the yellow line, which is what is normal, expected and accepted behaviour at a subway station.

I am personally not decided on culpability here, but I will be interested to see what comes of this case. So far I am just wondering if the TTC hired Amber Heard's lawyer, because their defence is trash.
 
cplchanb said:
True on that point, but theres validity on their initial rebuttal in that you can only do so much reasonably to try to stop stupid (standing at the edge of the platform dispute visual and tactile warnings) its sort of like that lady who sued McDonald's for spilling a hot cup of coffee on herself...
Click to expand...
That story is interesting. McDonald's used to serve coffee at scalding temps, far hotter than most restaurants serve coffee.
 
generalcanada said:
legally speaking she does have a point. The ttc knows that people falling onto tracks is a problem, but have they made enough of an effort to either warn people or make it safer.

Think of the reason why wet floor signs exist.

offhand the tactile stripe and the announcements exist, but is that enough legally speaking?
Click to expand...

In this instance, what more can the TTC do short of installing platform screen doors? It isn't like the individual who did the pushing has already caused enough ruckus to be identified and removed from the premises. Sounds like TTC can invoke force majeure as defence?

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
In this instance, what more can the TTC do short of installing platform screen doors? It isn't like the individual who did the pushing has already caused enough ruckus to be identified and removed from the premises. Sounds like TTC can invoke force majeure as defence?

AoD
Click to expand...
this will definitely be settled out of court, theres no way they would chance a jury to basically tell them that theyre responsible for all deaths on the subway unless they spend money on PSD's
 
The TTC’s statement of defence also states that Al-Balushi should not have been travelling alone on public transit “when she knew or ought to have known that it was unsafe for her to do so.”
Click to expand...
That is an absolutely appalling statement to make. Someone should take out public service advertisements: "Don't ride the TTC alone... TTC's lawyer says you should know that is inherently unsafe". I didn't know I wasn't supposed to ride without a guard with me. I'm a little concerned that the TTC doesn't think they are supposed to be creating a safe place for individuals.

The TTC should lose this case... not for full accountability, but for some. If the TTC and city has no accountability then they should stop talking about platform doors in meetings, maybe they should take all the yellow lines away and keep back announcements... because they have no accountability. We know that zero accountability is completely untrue. Just the fact other metro lines have platform doors is evidence that this is a known safety risk, that other agencies are taking steps to mitigate the risk, and joe public has no ability to solve the issue... the TTC needs to do it. The person who pushed is most accountable, but zero accountability to the TTC is crazy.
 
dkt said:
GO and VIA have low platforms, there's much less of a risk there. Not the same thing
Click to expand...

Still well within the opportunity of being pushed onto the tracks in front of an approaching train.

I'm not saying they're the same thing, but if you want to mitigate the risk of someone pushing you then all three have similar risks.
 
fanoftoronto said:
Still well within the opportunity of being pushed onto the tracks in front of an approaching train.

I'm not saying they're the same thing, but if you want to mitigate the risk of someone pushing you then all three have similar risks.
Click to expand...

Personally - disagree with this - the risks are not similar. While not without any risk, the situation with heavy rail passenger train stations is quite different:
  • much lower population densities, typically many fewer people on a platform in heavy rail stations than on TTC
  • low platforms as opposed to high ones (as stated above)
  • TTC subway trains pull into the loading area much faster, and slow down more quickly than heavy rail - Go and Via trains pull into their passenger platform areas much more slowly.
  • people risks - unfortunately, people at high risk of causing problems tend to migrate to larger cities, such as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, where there are better support services, and greater anonymity than many smaller communities
And, as a practical matter - TTC train cars on a given line are all standardized, allowing for a fixed infrastructure - platform screen doors - to be installed. Via rail trains are not standardized. Also both Via and Go trains (which at this point are fairly standard) use some stations in common. Union, Oakville, Guildwood for example, making installation of platform screen doors much more difficult.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top