A snow-covered tree stump was on one of the busiest trails that the club manages and maintains
The Quebec Superior Court has recently held a snowmobile club liable for a tree stump on a popular trail that left a man permanently injured.
In Clendenning c. Club de motoneigistes MRC Rouyn-Noranda inc., 2023 QCCS 1520, James Stover Clendenning was travelling on a snowmobile trail, known as Trans-Quebec 93, when he hit a snow-covered tree stump, causing him to lose control of his snowmobile and to hit several trees that were on the other side of the trail. Clendenning sustained a severe and permanent brain injury from the accident. He filed a negligence lawsuit against the Club de Montoneigistes MRC Rouyn-Noranda Inc., the entity responsible for maintaining the trail. Clendenning, his spouse, and his children claimed damages for more than $8 million.
The Club denied liability, asserting that Clendenning did not prove that he hit a tree stump on the trail, that the stump was not actually on the trail, and that the court should consider Clendenning to have accepted the inherent risks of the sport of snowmobiling. The Club also argued that Clendenning significantly overstated his claims.
The Quebec Superior Court ruled that the Club was negligent for failing to remove the tree stump on the Trans-Quebec 93, one of the busiest trails that the Club manages and maintains.
Clendenning and four friends went on a snowmobile trip in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region 2017. The court found, from all of the evidence, that Clendenning hit a tree stump present on the trail, and that caused him to lose control of his snowmobile.
The Club argued that the tree stump was outside the trail, so it had no obligation to remove it. However, the court found that the tree stump was “sufficiently on, or close to, the trail.” The court said it was negligent of the Club to leave the tree stump in place. In doing so, the Club failed to respect the standards and “rules of the art” of maintaining snowmobiling trails applicable to the Club as a member of the Fédération des Clubs de Motoneigistes du Québec.
The court wrote in its decision, “There was no good reason to leave the stump there. It was not as if it would have been particularly difficult to remove the stump.”
The Club asserted that the court must hold Clendenning to have accepted the inherent risks of the dangerous sport of snowmobiling. However, the court found that it was not an inherent risk of the sport of snowmobiling that caused Clendenning’s accident. Instead, it was a tree stump that should not have been where it was because of the negligence of the Club.
The court wrote, “Another person’s negligence is not an inherent risk that is presumed to be accepted when practising a sport, particularly not a risk as unexpected and dangerous as a snow-covered tree stump on the edge of a snowmobile trail where riders are entitled to go as fast as 70 km/h.”
The court concluded that the Club was negligent for leaving the stump on the trail. The stump also constituted a trap. The court said snowmobilers travelling on a generally well-maintained trail could not reasonably expect the presence of a tree stump on the trail or its edge. The court emphasized that the Club could have prevented the danger if it acted with reasonable prudence and diligence.
Following the accident, Clendenning suffered much pain, both physical and emotional. The court found that he has suffered significant stress and anxiety, much inconvenience, and a very significant loss of enjoyment of life. His daughter testified that Clendenning was constantly sad, stressed and worried. He had lost his confidence. He does not want to see his friends anymore because of his embarrassment for his inabilities and his irritability.
Before the accident, Clendenning worked on a farm that has been in his family for over 100 years. The court found that the farm was everything to Clendenning. He grew up on it, cared for it, raised his family operating it, and looked forward to gradually passing the reins to his son. After the accident, Clendenning could not service or use farm equipment. He could no longer handle the farm’s finances or make daily managerial or operational decisions.
The court also found that Clendenning’s wife had lost much in terms of companionship and enjoyment of life because of her husband’s injuries. Since the accident, her husband had become somewhat irritable, impatient, and egocentric, the opposite of how he was.
The court is ultimately satisfied that Clendenning and his family suffered damages because of the accident. Clendenning has suffered a loss of income for which the Club should compensate him. He has lost much functionality and occasionally requires supervision because of his significant and permanent impairment. The court also said that as “ricochet victims,” his wife and children suffered substantial moral damages. His wife is also entitled to compensation for her extraordinary care and assistance to her husband after the accident. Consequently, the court awarded Clendenning total damages of over $3 million. The court also awarded $324,133 to his wife and $30,000 to each of his five children.
