Cody Ceci sued for 8 million for freak accident

Perfect_Drug

Registered User
Mar 24, 2006
15,505
11,742
Montreal
A quick question. If she's going after Ceci's home insurance policy, why isn't it mentioned anywhere if that's the common thing to do? Obviously people outside Canada, who aren't familiar are hearing about this so you'd think that it's mentioned somewhere. Not saying I doubt your words or anything, I just find it weird that something that important isn't mentioned in any of the articles I've seen.

This seemed to outline the costs a bit more closely:
Leafs' Ceci being sued by burn victim of accident at party

To be honest?
If this happened to me, my private health insurance through work would cover me for it (I'm actually on my wife's policy).

Most homeowners insurance comes with liablities coverage. Basically it operates similarly to a getting injured in someone else's car.... the car insurance will cover the injuries.
Insurance for Damage and Injuries
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fig and Jugitsu

Jugitsu

Registered User
Dec 24, 2016
2,234
1,907
Finland
This seemed to outline the costs a bit more closely:
Leafs' Ceci being sued by burn victim of accident at party

To be honest?
If this happened to me, my private health insurance through work would cover me for it (I'm actually on my wife's policy).

Most homeowners insurance comes with liablities coverage. Basically it operates similarly to a getting injured in someone else's car.... the car insurance will cover the injuries.
Insurance for Damage and Injuries

Thanks for the info.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perfect_Drug

Ippenator

Registered User
Jan 6, 2016
5,667
4,435
Espoo
That's not really the case here, as she's already began to heal quite well after 4 months and is planning on returning to her company. So we're not really talking about someone who's disabled for life and unable to practice her profession, at least according to her. So in that light, I find the 6 million she's suing for loss of income a bit overkill. And when say I a bit, I mean the opposite.
The point is still on the losses of the income from her profession. Do you honestly think that she will be anymore a truly successful yoga-instructor with all of those permanent damages? I mean her skin looks hideous in that damaged area, even after all the surgeries and treatment that she has had. And that is just about the cosmetic damages. I don’t know what kind of permanent effect those damages could also cause into the efficiency for her to practice yoga or any physical activities on a high level ever anymore. But that severe skin damage (35% of her skin was burnt, which is enormous damage already) tends to cause a person to be at least partially handicapped permanently
 
Last edited:

Calendal

Registered User
May 16, 2016
1,236
821
London, England
I think there is some emphasis on pain and psychological trauma as well as cosmetic defects in Finland too. But it's very marginal.

From limited I read about this lawsuit, there's little that couldn't take place in Finland. If you hire a contractor to fix your roof and they set up improper scaffolding resulting in fall and injury, it's still the owner's responsibility.

I don't expect she would get anything close to 8 mil in Finland, but most of these things should could at least try (I don't expect 8 million in Canada, either). Then again, I'm no lawyer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ippenator

Jugitsu

Registered User
Dec 24, 2016
2,234
1,907
Finland
The point is still on the losses of the income from her profession. Do you honestly think that she will be anymore a truly successful yoga-instructor with all of those permanent damages? I mean her skin looks hideous in that damaged area, even after all the surgeries and treatment that she has had. And that is just about the cosmetic damages. I don’t know what kind of permanent effect those damages could also cause into the efficiency for her to practice yoga or any physical activities on a high level ever anymore. But that severe skin damage tends to cause a person to be at least partially handicapped permanently

I don't think she'll ever be a 6 million dollar successful yoga instructor. Even before the accident.

We don't know whether she'll be handicapped or not. A friend of mine suffered 3rd degree burns on his face, hands and upper body in a helicopter crash. He hasn't felt any discomfort in those burnt areas in a long time.
 

4thline

Registered User
Jul 18, 2014
14,378
9,688
Waterloo
The point is still on the losses of the income from her profession. Do you honestly think that she will be anymore a truly successful yoga-instructor with all of those permanent damages?

From one side- a 6m lost income award is crazy for a yoga instructor in Canada
From the other- she's not just an instructor, she owns and operates a studio that can and does operate without her as an instructor
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jugitsu

Jugitsu

Registered User
Dec 24, 2016
2,234
1,907
Finland
From limited I read about this lawsuit, there's little that couldn't take place in Finland. If you hire a contractor to fix your roof and they set up improper scaffolding resulting in fall and injury, it's still the owner's responsibility.

I don't expect she would get anything close to 8 mil in Finland, but most of these things should could at least try (I don't expect 8 million in Canada, either). Then again, I'm no lawyer.

I'm not disputing liability. That much is pretty much the same in ever western country I believe. Though in your example I highly doubt the owner is deemed liable in court if it's determined that the scaffolding was defect because of the company that installed it.
 
Nov 15, 2010
5,122
2,955
Western Canada
This is just one way to go after Ceci for liability:
Occupiers’ Liability Act
R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER O.2
Consolidation Period: From July 1, 2019 to the e-Laws currency date.
Last amendment: 2019, c. 7, Sched. 17, s. 128.
Definitions

1 In this Act,
“occupier” includes,
(a) a person who is in physical possession of premises, or
(b) a person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of premises or the activities there carried on, or control over persons allowed to enter the premises,
despite the fact that there is more than one occupier of the same premises; (“occupant”)
“premises” means lands and structures, or either of them, and includes,
(a) water,
(b) ships and vessels,
(c) trailers and portable structures designed or used for residence, business or shelter,
(d) trains, railway cars, vehicles and aircraft, except while in operation. (“lieux”) R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 1.
Common law duty of care superseded

2 Subject to section 9, this Act applies in place of the rules of the common law that determine the care that the occupier of premises at common law is required to show for the purpose of determining the occupier’s liability in law in respect of dangers to persons entering on the premises or the property brought on the premises by those persons. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 2.
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).
Criminal activity

(2) A person who is on premises with the intention of committing, or in the commission of, a criminal act shall be deemed to have willingly assumed all risks and is subject to the duty of care set out in subsection (1). R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 4 (2).
Trespass and permitted recreational activity

(3) A person who enters premises described in subsection (4) shall be deemed to have willingly assumed all risks and is subject to the duty of care set out in subsection (1),
(a) where the entry is prohibited under the Trespass to Property Act;
(b) where the occupier has posted no notice in respect of entry and has not otherwise expressly permitted entry; or
(c) where the entry is for the purpose of a recreational activity and,
(i) no fee is paid for the entry or activity of the person, other than a benefit or payment received from a government or government agency or a non-profit recreation club or association, and
(ii) the person is not being provided with living accommodation by the occupier. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 4 (3).
Same

(3.1) For greater certainty, the following do not constitute a fee for entry or activity of the person for the purposes of subclause (3) (c) (i):
1. A fee charged for a purpose incidental to the entry or activity, such as for parking.
2. The receipt by a non-profit recreation club or association of a benefit or payment from or under the authority of a government or government agency. 2016, c. 8, Sched. 3, s. 1 (1).
Premises referred to in subs. (3)

(4) The premises referred to in subsection (3) are,
(a) a rural premises that is,
(i) used for agricultural purposes, including land under cultivation, orchards, pastures, woodlots and farm ponds,
(ii) vacant or undeveloped premises,
(iii) forested or wilderness premises;
(b) golf courses when not open for playing;
(c) utility rights-of-way and corridors, excluding structures located thereon;
(d) unopened road allowances;
(e) private roads reasonably marked by notice as such;
(f) recreational trails reasonably marked by notice as such; and
(g) portage routes. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 4 (4); 2016, c. 8, Sched. 3, s. 1 (2).
Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y)
Restriction of duty or liability

5 (1) The duty of an occupier under this Act, or the occupier’s liability for breach thereof, shall not be restricted or excluded by any contract to which the person to whom the duty is owed is not a party, whether or not the occupier is bound by the contract to permit such person to enter or use the premises.
Extension of liability by contract

(2) A contract shall not by virtue of this Act have the effect, unless it expressly so provides, of making an occupier who has taken reasonable care, liable to any person not a party to the contract, for dangers due to the faulty execution of any work of construction, maintenance or repair, or other like operation by persons other than the occupier, employees of the occupier and persons acting under the occupier’s direction and control.
Reasonable steps to inform

(3) Where an occupier is free to restrict, modify or exclude the occupier’s duty of care or the occupier’s liability for breach thereof, the occupier shall take reasonable steps to bring such restriction, modification or exclusion to the attention of the person to whom the duty is owed. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 5.
Liability where independent contractor

6 (1) Where damage to any person or his or her property is caused by the negligence of an independent contractor employed by the occupier, the occupier is not on that account liable if in all the circumstances the occupier had acted reasonably in entrusting the work to the independent contractor, if the occupier had taken such steps, if any, as the occupier reasonably ought in order to be satisfied that the contractor was competent and that the work had been properly done, and if it was reasonable that the work performed by the independent contractor should have been undertaken.
Idem

(2) Where there is more than one occupier of premises, any benefit accruing by reason of subsection (1) to the occupier who employed the independent contractor shall accrue to all occupiers of the premises.
Idem

(3) Nothing in this section affects any duty of the occupier that is non-delegable at common law or affects any provision in any other Act that provides that an occupier is liable for the negligence of an independent contractor. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 6.
Application of ss. 5 (1, 2), 6

7 In so far as subsections 5 (1) and (2) prevent the duty of care owed by an occupier, or liability for breach thereof, from being restricted or excluded, they apply to contracts entered into both before and after the commencement of this Act, and in so far as section 6 enlarges the duty of care owed by an occupier, or liability for breach thereof, it applies only in respect of contracts entered into after the 8th day of September, 1980. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 7.
Obligations of landlord as occupier

8 (1) Where premises are occupied or used by virtue of a tenancy under which the landlord is responsible for the maintenance or repair of the premises, it is the duty of the landlord to show towards any person or the property brought on the premises by those persons, the same duty of care in respect of dangers arising from any failure on the landlord’s part in carrying out the landlord’s responsibility as is required by this Act to be shown by an occupier of the premises.
Idem

(2) For the purposes of this section, a landlord shall not be deemed to have made default in carrying out any obligation to a person unless the landlord’s default is such as to be actionable at the suit of the person entitled to possession of the premises.
Definitions

(3) For the purposes of this section, obligations imposed by any enactment by virtue of a tenancy shall be treated as imposed by the tenancy, and “tenancy” includes a statutory tenancy, an implied tenancy and any contract conferring the right of occupation, and “landlord” shall be construed accordingly.
Application of section

(4) This section applies to all tenancies whether created before or after the commencement of this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 8.
Preservation of higher obligations

9 (1) Nothing in this Act relieves an occupier of premises in any particular case from any higher liability or any duty to show a higher standard of care that in that case is incumbent on the occupier by virtue of any enactment or rule of law imposing special liability or standards of care on particular classes of persons including, but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the obligations of,
(a) innkeepers, subject to the Innkeepers Act;
(b) common carriers;
(c) bailees.
Employer and employee relationships

(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the rights, duties and liabilities resulting from an employer and employee relationship where it exists.
Application of Negligence Act

(3) The Negligence Act applies with respect to causes of action to which this Act applies. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 9.
Act binds Crown

10 (1) This Act binds the Crown, subject to the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 10 (1); 2019, c. 7, Sched. 17, s. 128.
Exception

(2) This Act does not apply to the Crown or to any municipal corporation, where the Crown or the municipal corporation is an occupier of a public highway or a public road. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 10 (2).
Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y)
Application of Act

11 This Act does not affect rights and liabilities of persons in respect of causes of action arising before the 8th day of September, 1980. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 11.
Law Document English View
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perfect_Drug

Filthy Dangles

Registered User*
Oct 23, 2014
28,484
40,011
Ceci has been a human tire fire for his entire life, so it’s hard to believe that this is really the first time he’s accidentally set somebody on fire.

(My condolences go out to Hana Engel and her family. I hope she is able to complete a full recovery.)

If you're gonna make a taboo joke in a serious matter like that, at least make sure it's funny first, yikes.

----

 

bert

Registered User
Nov 11, 2002
36,067
22,028
Visit site
I don't think she'll ever be a 6 million dollar successful yoga instructor. Even before the accident.

We don't know whether she'll be handicapped or not. A friend of mine suffered 3rd degree burns on his face, hands and upper body in a helicopter crash. He hasn't felt any discomfort in those burnt areas in a long time.

Thats good because she isnt just an instructor she had launched an entire business of a specific style of yoga studio she was franchising. Clearly you dont have any idea about the subject you are commenting on.

Are you a doctor? An expert on 3rd degree burns?

Just stop, you have no clue.
 

Ippenator

Registered User
Jan 6, 2016
5,667
4,435
Espoo
I don't think she'll ever be a 6 million dollar successful yoga instructor. Even before the accident.

We don't know whether she'll be handicapped or not. A friend of mine suffered 3rd degree burns on his face, hands and upper body in a helicopter crash. He hasn't felt any discomfort in those burnt areas in a long time.
Of course her lawyer is sueing for an amount that is most likely much more than what she should be really getting. Lawyers usually go overboard with their demands in liability cases - especially if they have a hunch that the damage could be covered by an insurance company after all. I wouldn't get too stuck with the full amount of money that has been discussed, as she most likely will get clearly less as compensation.

But I do expect her final compensation to be still pretty substantial in the end. Some millions wouldn’t suprise me. I do agree though, that most probably it is difficult to show evidence of her losing that whole 6 millions in her profession/company due to the damage she has suffered. But I’m pretty sure that her handicap rating (not sure of the right term for it in North America) is really quite bad with those damages.
 

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
49,700
29,513
St. OILbert, AB
That seems pretty standard for something like this. That’s a permanent injury. She’ll deal with it for the rest of her life, not to mention the pain and suffering plus medical bills she’s already had. This is also what insurance is for though I’m sure they’ll argue it was gross negligence and try not to cover it.
there are no medical bills cause healthcare is free in Canada but I get what you're saying
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perfect_Drug

Jugitsu

Registered User
Dec 24, 2016
2,234
1,907
Finland
Thats good because she isnt just an instructor she had launched an entire business of a specific style of yoga studio she was franchising. Clearly you dont have any idea about the subject you are commenting on.

Are you a doctor? An expert on 3rd degree burns?

Just stop, you have no clue.

So all of a sudden she's never able to do just that? It's over? As I understand her business has been running all this time even without her. So I have a hard time believing she can't still fulfill her dreams in that regard.

No I'm not an expert. I do however know someone who has suffered 3rd degree burns in over 50% of his body. He turned out to be fine, apart from the apparent cosmetic nuisance. According to the articles, she's already considering returning to her business after that just 4 months, so it doesn't sound like her dreams of franchising are over.
 

TheBeastCoast

Registered User
Mar 23, 2011
31,167
31,184
Dartmouth,NS
I have a really hard time blaming the victim of a horrific burn of being "opportunistic" regardless of how much money she ends up getting. She probably didnt even choose who to sue. She retained a lawyer or two and they are casting a extremely wide net...as they should and she probably walks away with 1-2 million and Ceci's insurance premiums go up. The horror.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fivesberg

Placid Perspicuity

Registered User
Apr 19, 2016
358
427
Ceci has been a human tire fire for his entire life, so it’s hard to believe that this is really the first time he’s accidentally set somebody on fire.

(My condolences go out to Hana Engel and her family. I hope she is able to complete a full recovery.)

Your message of condolence would sound less hollow if you didn't preface it with a joke mocking the situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Memento

ottawa

Avatar of the Year*
Nov 7, 2012
33,729
10,286
Orléans/Toronto
I don't think she'll ever be a 6 million dollar successful yoga instructor. Even before the accident.

We don't know whether she'll be handicapped or not. A friend of mine suffered 3rd degree burns on his face, hands and upper body in a helicopter crash. He hasn't felt any discomfort in those burnt areas in a long time.

In your case you actually don't know anything and you're here to add more fire to this to irritate people.

She wasn't an instructor but a business owner FYI, maybe she had plans to launch several more for all we know.

She sued for 8m, she won't get all 8m but she sure as hell deserves it.
 

POVERTY

Leafs and Marchand fan
Sep 27, 2017
1,452
4,269
When in doubt, throw burning object at the nearest house guest
 

ottawa

Avatar of the Year*
Nov 7, 2012
33,729
10,286
Orléans/Toronto
Its almost like she is not about to get obscene amounts of money. Id switch places on the spot to be set for life. Im europe your lucky to get 10k from such incedents.

She's not at all lucky for getting 3rd degree burns, maybe you're just unlucky for living in Europe.

If you seriously want to switch spots with her then you're free to go get a 3rd degree burn but you won't. As if people are responding with idiotic posts like the one above in a thread like this :facepalm:
 
  • Like
Reactions: fivesberg

bert

Registered User
Nov 11, 2002
36,067
22,028
Visit site
So all of a sudden she's never able to do just that? It's over? As I understand her business has been running all this time even without her. So I have a hard time believing she can't still fulfill her dreams in that regard.

No I'm not an expert. I do however know someone who has suffered 3rd degree burns in over 50% of his body. He turned out to be fine, apart from the apparent cosmetic nuisance. According to the articles, she's already considering returning to her business after that just 4 months, so it doesn't sound like her dreams of franchising are over.

Well you dont understand thats for sure, so as I said stop. Her business was growing rapidly and almost had to declare bankrupcy due to the event. She was the face, the personality and the social media influencer that was growing it, it lost all its momentum.

Again you have absolutely no clue about the burns what its like emotionally and mentally, you are talking out of your ass. 4 months? This happened over a year ago, AGAIN JUST STOP or atleast get the facts strait and do some research.
 

TheBeastCoast

Registered User
Mar 23, 2011
31,167
31,184
Dartmouth,NS
Its almost like she is not about to get obscene amounts of money. Id switch places on the spot to be set for life. Im europe your lucky to get 10k from such incedents.
I seriously doubt if someone was standing in front of you and gave you that option as a reality that you would take being burned to that extent. There is absolutely nothing good about it or the pain that comes with it. There isnt an amount of money that is worth it.
 

Lempo

Recovering Future Considerations Truther
Sponsor
Feb 23, 2014
26,774
83,392
I'd be interested to see those sums.

You can download the pdf here:

"Henkilövahinkoasiain neuvottelukunnan suositukset 2017"

Henkilövahinkoasiain neuvottelukunta

They are "recommenations" for the amounts of damages according to Damages Act, chapter 5. Pain and suffering, temporal and permanent.

For academic practice purposes, page 4:

"Severe burn damage. Needs lengthy hospital care and several corrective surgeries. Causing extremely large temporal detriment for 3 to 12 months. Permanent damage." 4,000 to 18,000 euros.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->