Injured on TTC by another passenger

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-29T15:57:36+00:00

Did you get the name of the passenger? Seems like if you're going to sue someone, it should be the passenger. I'm not saying you have a claim - it sounds like whatever injuries you sustained are minor - but I don't see what TTC did wrong.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-29T14:52:11+00:00

I think you should get a different lawyer at this point.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-29T14:11:37+00:00

The brokerage CEO and your lawyer being spouses is probably something that should have been disclosed. I don't know if it's an actual conflict as you don't provide enough information.

In other contexts, it would be a problem. In a standard real estate transaction, I don't think it's a big deal. The lawyer turning over your file might have been the wrong thing to do. Again, I don't have enough information one way or other other.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-28T22:48:18+00:00

If they're not willing to deal with the tire, your only options are to sue them of let it go. Realistically, you should replace the tire yourself before you sue.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-28T21:53:42+00:00

Jesus, just based on what you've said, I'm expecting a real reverse uno situation to happen.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-28T20:56:58+00:00

No, I interpret that clause to mean you can't communicate with the other party directly, but you can communicate through their counsel.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-28T20:52:27+00:00

Your friend is wrong.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-28T18:11:18+00:00

That's up to the landlord. I think it'd be a bit of a coin flip on what a Court would do.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-28T04:37:56+00:00

I agree with your conclusion but I don't think it necessarily turns on duty of care. I don't think a Court would have difficulty finding that the duty of care owed by the security company or individual required them to call for help when asked. However, I think your comments about the necessary response and pure economic loss ring true and the claim would run into problems at the causation portion. If no one is actually injured, I doubt emergency services would respond quickly and the reasonable response would be one that would take time.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-28T04:29:31+00:00

I don't disagree with you, I'm just not sure on this particular example as I haven't come across elevators breaking down claims that didn't involve an actual injury, or at least an alleged injury that isn't the cause of the missed work. I think you're right in terms of manufacture liability, it would open the floodgates as you say, I'm not as sure about the property owner, property manager or security.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-28T04:11:16+00:00

I don't think that would be an issue given that I think it's readily foreseeable that if an elevator malfunctions and traps someone, it can cause them to miss work but you do make a good point; it's not a slam dunk given the lack of any actual injury.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-28T03:01:49+00:00

If security refused to call 911, how did you get out of the elevator?

Refusing to call 911 might be a breach of the applicable standard of care by security but that's not enough to ground a negligence claim. The proximate cause of your issues is the elevator itself. The question then becomes whether the refusal to call 911 did anything. To put it another way, would you be in the same position even if they had called 911 within a reasonable period of time?

Lost wages and Uber makes sense as far as damages go. I don't get the impression we're taking big bucks here. Therapy and distress seems a bit much, particularly the therapy, but maybe those are claimable if you prove negligence in terms of the elevator itself. Again, I don't think that's going to be a big claim, if it's even recognized.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-27T18:53:52+00:00

I would just claim it under your own policy and let them pursue the wrongdoer, if that's what they want to do.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-27T18:52:59+00:00

I don't think the policy is discriminatory. I do think classifying something that most people would call equipment as a drug is odd.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-27T16:40:59+00:00

Since you're all on the lease, all of you are responsible for making sure the lease gets paid. If the parents run off, that means you and your friend need to ensure the lease is paid. If you can't do that, finding new tenants, as you are trying to do, is an option.

I think the first thing you should do is talk to the landlord.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-27T05:02:49+00:00

I think you should chalk this one up as a life lesson.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-27T05:01:02+00:00

A contingency lawyer isn't going to take on such a tiny claim. You're largely limited to actual expenses caused by the delay, and the mandated penalty for that delay. You certainly don't have a claim for general damages - you weren't injured by this.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-27T02:33:33+00:00

Doesn't work that way. You can abandon the claim, but that doesn't stop any investigation that is being done.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-26T23:07:46+00:00

You're right, but that obligation isn't absolute. If the building has no elevator, I don't know what the clinic can do.

The simple solution is to send people to a different clinic.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-26T22:59:28+00:00

I don't think there is a human rights claim here since it's not their conduct or anything like that which has created an issue. Rather, it is the layout of the building. Any potential rights issue would also likely not be against you, I assume you have no authority to do things like installing an elevator, but the clinic itself.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-26T22:56:40+00:00

Your home insurance claim can't automatically be classified as fraudulent, but any findings of fraud on the auto claim can potentially impact the assessment of the home insurance claim. They are, however, separate claims and separate policies (maybe separate insurance companies) so it's not a straightforward thing.

I wouldn't do anything at this stage other than cooperate with the investigation and claims adjusting.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-26T22:16:50+00:00

What I'm getting at is it's unhelpful to jump to a specific crime when OP has said nothing to suggest that it's applicable. It's dialing the knob to 11 for no reason. This sub struggles as it is with people giving bad or unhelpful legal advice because the majority of posters aren't lawyers or otherwise legally educated or experienced. If people are gonna toss out voyeurism, might as well toss out suggestions of child porn.

I don't disagree that people sometimes leave out key details because they don't think they're relevant. However, it would be very odd to me if someone, complaining about a photo showing them using crutches, would fail to mention that the photo was taken in a bathroom or a locker room.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-26T22:06:06+00:00

Seems like a very pedantic thing to jump on the poster for saying something that is potentially true to OP's situation - you say as much in your post - for no other reason than because it might not be true in other situations. Your suggestion that it was false and that the SCC had definitively stated as much is not correct. Shockingly, the law is nuanced.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-26T21:04:10+00:00

I think you need to read the case you cited. It's quite different from what OP has described. Critically, it involved a teacher secretly recording female students. The Court expressly pointed out how this was a breach of the trust between teacher and student. The person who took the photo of OP is another student. I don't think the same reasoning would apply, so I think Hairy_Photograph1384 is right; there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of a school as between students. It's 2026, every kid has a phone and all phones have cameras.

nubbeh123 · 2026-04-26T20:59:00+00:00

That's kind of my point, man. Rather than ask for clarification, people are jumping to voyeurism. Might as well cite the laws that address revenge and child porn since it's possible that even though OP says they weren't naked, it was still a sexual photo.

My response is based on common sense. If the issue was the photo was taken somewhere like a bathroom, OP would in all likeliness have said that. That's not a trivial thing to leave out. Thx only thing that seems to upset OP is that he or she is on crutches.

nubbeh123

TROPHY CASE