Cody Ceci sued for 8 million for freak accident

[overlords]

Thats what insurance is for bud. Do you think that the 8m will be getting garnished right off of Cody Ceci's hockey pay check? Lol.

If she had been fraternizing with a less wealthy group of people that had less assets, less insurance coverage, and less earning power, then yes, she would not be getting as much in compensation. Boy oh' boy did she ever hit the jackpot eh......

This girl deserves every cent of that money, and the only saving grace is that the accident was caused by people who are able to compensate her fully for something that will affect her for the rest of her life. You really dont have any idea how horrible burns are to live with, apparently.

Stick to what you may actually know, friendo, as little as that may be.

Not agreeing that someone needs to fork over millions of dollars because of an accident they had little control over =/= not having sympathy or empathizing with a victim of a horrible accident. Your post is all over the place. You first mock the notion that the fact she's around rich people is the only reason she may be able to get anything out of this, only to confirm it in your next paragraph. You also then proceed to ham it up with your jackpot comment, which nobody in this thread, as far as I can tell, has put forward.

There's really almost nothing to respond to here.

 

[HanSolo]

Would homeowners insurance cover this accident?

Probably not.

 

[overlords]

Don't really understand the need people have to gossip over private stuff like this involving people they've never met and don't know anything about. This is a pure gossip thread - no more, no less.

I see quite a few people diving into the legal technicalities to enlighten others, while some are discussing the moral implications of holding someone accountable for something they didn't do if only to 'justly' recompense a victim of an accident. If your brain processes all of that as 'gossip', well that's on you. There's a thread ignore feature. /shrug

 

[LeHab]

I guess it's true. Just a tough legal argument to make. I'm just going off what I know about American law. Everyone thinks if an injury happens on someone's property that's automatic award of damages but there's actually a standard even if it is your property that the condition on land must be such that could reasonably be expected by the property owner to cause an injury. I never learned about on owned property vicarious liability but if Ceci can prove he had no way of knowing such an accident would occur I think he can escape individual liability. His girlfriend not so much. It's reasonably expected that not handling lighter fluid with care can lead to severe damage. She had a duty of care to the victim. If Ceci didn't know she was going to even use lighter fluid in any capacity then he's probably fine, though still likely honorbound to pay his girlfriend's legal costs.

IANAL but Ontario has an Occupier's Liability Act which may apply here: Law Document English View

Occupier’s duty
3 (1) An occupier of premises owes a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises, and the property brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises.
Idem

(2) The duty of care provided for in subsection (1) applies whether the danger is caused by the condition of the premises or by an activity carried on on the premises.
Idem

(3) The duty of care provided for in subsection (1) applies except in so far as the occupier of premises is free to and does restrict, modify or exclude the occupier’s duty. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 3.
Risks willingly assumed

4 (1) The duty of care provided for in subsection 3 (1) does not apply in respect of risks willingly assumed by the person who enters on the premises, but in that case the occupier owes a duty to the person to not create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm or damage to the person or his or her property and to not act with reckless disregard of the presence of the person or his or her property. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 4 (1).

Guess they will argue what is reasonable and what is not.

 

[Samsquanch]

Stick to what you may actually know, friendo, as little as that may be.

Not agreeing that someone needs to fork over millions of dollars because of an accident they had little control over =/= not having sympathy or empathizing with a victim of a horrible accident. Your post is all over the place. You first mock the notion that the fact she's around rich people is the only reason she may be able to get anything out of this, only to confirm it in your next paragraph. You also then proceed to ham it up with your jackpot comment, which nobody in this thread, as far as I can tell, has put forward.

There's really almost nothing to respond to here.

The good thing for everyone is that the law doesn't care if you like it or agree with it.

It ensures that the people of our society hold themselves accountable at all times. And now we dont have dumb shits running around all the time causing accidents that would hurt other people and their livelihoods. And if they do, even by accident, there are consequences - possibly even affecting their loved ones.

Did you understand that, or was it too all over the place for you? If it makes you feel any better, I'm glad that it's not out of control here in Canada like it is in the states; they took it to the next level.

But this poor girl does deserve a massive amount of compensation in my eyes, and I'm positive the judge (hypothetical - it will never reach court) would rule heavily in her favor for very obvious reasons, to most adults...

 

[Kennedys]

Didn't read the thread but i'm sure HF found a way to be outraged/triggered

 

[El Travo]

Isn't this why there's a double-tap tradition in China when it comes to hitting pedestrians with a vehicle?

I understand she should be compensated for medical bills and suffering, but I can't even fathom how 8 million dollars is a reasonable amount to demand.

 

[Red Piller]

Well there's half the problem. You're talking Canadian law and I'm talking American.

Though I'll give you credit, this is a Canadian case.

In either country though, I'm betting the level you have to go to to prove the server or host's negligence is insane.

Maybe. Maybe not. People get sued all the time because of that law. If something happens on your property you are liable also. If someone delivers a package to your door and they slip and break their leg they can sue you. If they break into your house and they fall down the stairs and break their neck, they can sue you here, even if they broke the law by breaking in. I guarantee you that Ceci is liable because it happened on his property, regardless of fault.

 

[HanSolo]

IANAL but Ontario has an Occupier's Liability Act which may apply here: Law Document English View



Guess they will argue what is reasonable and what is not.

"Reasonable" can be a subjective/discretionary standard anywhere in the law. Interesting that it's not reasonably "foreseeable"

 

[PAZ]

Isn't this why there's a double-tap tradition in China when it comes to hitting pedestrians with a vehicle?

I understand she should be compensated for medical bills and suffering, but I can't even fathom how 8 million dollars is a reasonable amount to demand.

Would you volunteer to go through what she went through for $8 mil? If the answer is no, than all of a sudden it's not too hard to fathom.

 

[mouser]

Would homeowners insurance cover this accident?

Homeowners insurance probably covers this accident, and they've probably already paid out the maximum coverage limit on the policy. I'm going to guess that policy coverage is a lot less then $8m.

 

[WingsMJN2965]

Maybe. Maybe not. People get sued all the time because of that law. If something happens on your property you are liable also. If someone delivers a package to your door and they slip and break their leg they can sue you. If they break into your house and they fall down the stairs and break their neck, they can sue you here, even if they broke the law by breaking in. I guarantee you that Ceci is liable because it happened on his property, regardless of fault.

People sue all the time for cases they have no chance of winning.

Because in today's day and age it's cheaper to pay a settlement than court costs and a lawyer.

 

[aufheben]

What a horrific and unnecessary thing to happen. I'd be pretty f***ed up psychologically just witnessing that. I can't even imagine...

Outdoor tabletop fireplace...that has to be one of the most frivolous and asinine products I've ever heard of. The f*** did you think would happen?

Would you volunteer to go through what she went through for $8 mil? If the answer is no, than all of a sudden it's not too hard to fathom.

Well said.

 

[Tomas W]

I imagine Ceci owns the home this happened at so it would fall under his homeowners policy which is why he needs to be included in the lawsuit.

Odds are Ceci himself nor his partner ever pay a dime in actual damages personally. It’ll all go under insurance.

So the insurance company will just happily pay out 8 million dollarez, well if Im Cody I say, "pay them 10!".

 

[ijuka]

Yes, it's too bad that she got the burns. No, I don't think that Cody Ceci should need to pay for it at all. Saying that she "deserves" the money because she got the burns "and you wouldn't want to live without the burns" is ridiculous in my opinion. Ceci still doesn't deserve to lose the money. Even more absurd is suing the company that made the fireplace or the oil company or whatever. IMO the person who made the mistake is the only one at fault.

 

[Lempo]

Outdoor tabletop fireplace...that has to be one of the most frivolous and asinine products I've ever heard of. The **** did you think would happen?

That's effectively a fancy version of a regular garden-variety charcoal grill, isn't it?

Accidents with ignition fluid are dime i dozen with those. You douze the coals with fluid, set it on fire. Soon enough the flame smothers down for some reason, so you the slightly drunken moron go on to squirt some more ignition fluid which hits the hot metal of the grill, and a fireball ensues. This is your usual America's Funniest Homevideos stuff. I'm sure there are plenty of precedents in the courts too, because people get hurt. A person really should know better, so it's a point for there having been negligence.

This time around the flame (also) travelled back the fluid squirt and ignited the fluid bottle effectively making it a Molotov's cocktail that accidentally got thrown at the poor woman in her apparently flammable clothes. That's very bad luck, but it's also an immediate consequence of the negligence so it's probably hard to explain away as an out-of-nowhere accident having happened.

I understand also the fireplace maker and the ethanol provider companies are named as defendants, apparently for inadequate warnings. It's obvious enough that you shouldn't pour the fluid on hot metal, so you would expect there is a warning.

In our wacky world any lack of explicit warning for such an apparent risk could even be understood as the manufacturer's statement that the usual risk is not there with this particular product and that it's safe to add this particular fluid in a hot fireplace.

"I was aware of such risk generally being there, so I carefully read the bottle before doing this. From the lack of any kind of expected warning I assumed this was safe fuel to pour on a hot burner. As the bottle ignited in my hand I was first surprised and then aghasted of the extent of the criminal negligence by the [fluid manufacturer]."

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I knew it had to be a woman even before reading the article.

You must be a real catch.

 

[Star Ocean]

In sweden you would get like 7000 dollars max and thats it.

 

[Voodoo Child]

Sue for 8.

Settle out of court for 3.

Ceci will pay maybe 750k and his insurance should cover the rest.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Homeowners insurance probably covers this accident, and they've probably already paid out the maximum coverage limit on the policy. I'm going to guess that policy coverage is a lot less then $8m.

I cannot speak to Canada, but in the US, a person like that would probably have a large umbrella liability policy that would likely cover that much, or at least they should. US homeowners policies (at least ones I’ve had) have a minimum of 100k coverage but more typically 300k-500k liability coverage, so an umbrella is required if you want more).

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Re: the sum she is asking for, if I read it correctly, her "cut" would be $6.8M Canadian ($5.1M USD) IF they were to get the full amount.
My guess is they would end up settling for a lot less.
The lawyer (at least in the US) would take ~35-40% of the settlement as his fees. Not sure if this is true in Canada.
I think "pain and suffering" settlement portions are not taxed in Canada, but not sure about "loss of earnings" which if I understand correctly, is the bulk of the asking amount. I think they might be but someone versed in Canadian Tax law should weigh in as I'm not sure.

So let's say they settle for half.

Her $6.8M ($5.1MUSD) becomes $3.4M ($2.56M USD)
After legal fees it's $2.2M ($1.65M USD)

If the bulk of that is now taxable as well because it's loss of earnings (not sure about this so someone would have to weigh in), the sum, in reality is quite a bit less than the $8M being thrown around.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

When I first started reading the write up in the OP, I assumed she had probably suffered a few minor burns, and this was just a money grab

Then I read the part about spending 3 weeks in a coma, plus the 18 hours of surgery, and thought 'okay, it's probably worse than I had imagined'

Then I Googled the images and thought 'yep, 8 million seems about right'

Not sure why Cody would be liable though

Again -

His house, his homeowners policy, his umbrella policy.

We can also add in his fireplace (likely), his lighter fluid (likely).

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I cannot speak to Canada, but in the US, a person like that would probably have a large umbrella liability policy that would likely cover that much, or at least they should. US homeowners policies (at least ones I’ve had) have a minimum of 100k coverage but more typically 300k-500k liability coverage, so an umbrella is required if you want more).

Hell, I have a $3M umbrella and I am just a middle class person. If Ceci isn't an idiot, he has a $15-$20M umbrella (likely a few layers).

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Hell, I have a $3M umbrella and I am just a middle class person. If Ceci isn't an idiot, he has a $15-$20M umbrella (likely a few layers).

Exactly.

 

[Lempo]

Again -

His house, his homeowners policy, his umbrella policy.

We can also add in his fireplace (likely), his lighter fluid (likely).

... his girlfriend.

(Obviously "his common law partner in near-marital conditions" in the filed suit.)

("By intentionally not doing the honorable thing, this man has artificially limited his legal responsibility for the actions of the person who effectively for all intents and purposes is his wife, to the detriment of my client...")

("Furthermore, this man has financially supported the lifestyle of his living-in "girlfriend", contributing to the circumstances where she has no personal professional career or personal income to speak of, thusly negating my client's any possibility to ever recover the damages from her. This has also greatly contributed to her general irresponsibility and negligence in her life, which was the direct cause of the injuries suffered by my client.")