CASE LAW - Perilli v Marlow

BC Courts Coat of ArmsNot all collision litigation resulting from crashes on our highways involve motor vehicles. In this case, the collision occurred between Rosario Perilli, a jogger, and Wendy Marlow, a 10 year old youth riding a bicycle. Mr. Perilli fell to the ground in his attempt to avoid the collision and suffered injuries, including one to his shoulder that required surgery to repair.

Mr. Perilli claims against Ms. Marlow’s grandparents on the basis that they did not properly instruct Ms. Marlow in the safe operation of a bicycle.

Ms. Marlow was one of three girls riding side by side, two on the sidewalks and herself on the roadway. Mr. Perilli was jogging in the same direction on the sidewalk in the same direction of travel as the girls. All were facing oncoming traffic.

When Mr. Perilli overtook the girls, he decided to pass them on the left by jogging on the roadway. As he passed, Ms. Marlow moved left and his foot collided with her rear wheel.

Mr. Justice Dley discusses the duties of cyclists and pedestrians in relation to each other and the law, ultimately finding Ms. Marlow did not breach the required standard of care and there could be no liability against her grandparents.

Link:

Comments

Bikes on sidewalks

If nothing else, the adults who were supervising the girl should have been fined and admonished.  Again, responsibility avoidance seems to be the goal.  It was drilled into my head (and that’s a long time ago) that I am NOT to ride my bike on sidewalks or crosswalks.... period.  Unless you “walk” your bike in either scenario.  I have lost count of the violators who RIDE their bicycles on the sidewalk and crosswalks AND abreast so the pedestrian can not even use the sidewalk and must step off to let the cyclists go by.  But yet again, no enforcement with that or helmets or reflective gear.  It’s a pool of offences that NEVER get corrected.  Perhaps licensing is required, at least proper schooling might adhere.

Ummm, hello?

Who sues a 10 year old girl who was riding on the road, not the sidewalk? Only the kind of people who get up early in the morning to go on an invigorating run proudly wearing their spandex and getting a taxpayer provided knee replacement surgery as early as 50. Quite frankly the runner should be licensed before they are let out of their house.

You realize that the runner was coming up from behind, tripped on the girl's bike, fell and sued? The only person who should be admonished in the slightest is the eager-beaver runner doing a slip and fall scam.

Ummmm.... hello! Right back at ya!

Well, the “lawsuit” was against the adults who were in charge of the 10 year old, the complainant is not suing the child.  Regardless, she was not following the rules of the road but riding facing traffic. The jogger (as I interrupted the evidence) was trying to pass the girls who were riding on the sidewalk abreast (another violation) to which I believe he was trying to be tolerant and decent and stepped onto to the pavement simultaneously to the girl swerving into his path, hence the collision.  Why all the animosity directed at the jogger?  Suggesting that all joggers wear spandex and are aggressive - that’s called discrimination.  You seriously missed the point of responsibility.  Whose duty is it to ensure the child is roadsmart while using her bicycle? And whose responsibility is it that she is taught these rules?  There are a ton of bad parents out there and they are rarely accountable for their lack of discipline, it’s always someone else’s fault!  I little accountability (fine) and responsibility is seriously lacking in the “me” generation.

The "me" generation?

For pity's sake, she's a 10 year old girl and she was riding carefully.

The jogger should have given those children more room - that was his responsibility.

Rules of the road.

Overtaking vessle yields right of way.  Quite simple really.

My 2 cents.

Reddog.

Google Ads