In a message dated 3/16/2005 4:28:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:15:43 -0600, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In Canada, we consider bicycles to be vehicles. > Crashing your vehicle because you weren't paying attention is called > driving without due care and attention and is a driving infraction. > Shel, by the same criteria, a person could be sued because their car > is an odd colour and caught someone's eye. > > William Robb >
In the case before the bar, although Mr. Theriault does admit to pointing the said camera in the direction of the plaintiff, and further admits to taking a photo, this court finds that in fact the defendant was standing on the sidewalk: a place where he is legally entitled to stand. There is no evidence before this court that the defendant called out, or in any way did anything to attract the attention of the plaintiff. The camera he was using was small and unobtrusive (this court may have found differently had the defendant been shooting with a Canon DSLR or a Pentax 6x7) - in fact his camera is designed for, and has the reputation of being a camera that is not easy to notice in a crowd. Given what I've heard, I find that the plaintiff was not paying due attention to his task at hand, that is manoevering a bicycle in busy downtown traffic. Had he been watching the road conditions, rather than the sidewalk traffic, it is unlikely that this collision would have occured. The irony that the defendant is also a bicycle messenger has no bearing on this decision, but neither is it lost on this court. I find for the defendant, who shall have his costs throughout. Not much a photo, though. -Justice Knarf =========== I don't know, frank. That legalese comes back to you awfully easily. May have to think of you as a lawyer, not a biker, after all. ;-) Marnie
