League and Williams Lawyers

Category: Road Safety

  • Enhanced Care – ICBC’s New Changes: Good or Bad?

    Enhanced Care – ICBC’s New Changes: Good or Bad?

    ICBC recently announced significant changes coming to the standard auto insurance system in British Columbia. Starting in May 2021, all insured vehicles will be switched to the new Enhanced Care coverage system. The underlying idea is that BC residents will pay less for their auto insurance by removing the ability to involve lawyers and mount lawsuits after a car incident. The cost of auto insurance is set to be reduced by approximately 20% or $400 each year, while the benefit maximums will be increased.

    What is Enhanced Care?

    Looking at the comparison above, the Enhanced Care system features significantly more in the maximum allowance for accident recovery, noting an increase by more than 24 times today’s plan. Today, if you are involved in a crash, you receive a maximum of $300,000 in benefits and up to $740 each week in lost wages. From there, you can choose to sue to receive further compensation. Under the Enhanced Care coverage, the maximum is $7.5 million and $1,200 each week in lost wages. This increase is to make up for the difference in not being able to sue other drivers involved in your injury. Enhanced Care features various other benefits to car crash victims attempting to accommodate for all circumstances.

    Is Enhanced Care as good as it sounds?

    At first glance, Enhanced Care sounds like a great change coming to ICBC and BC auto insurance; however, upon further analysis, you may start to think otherwise. While lawyers and legal fees can be expensive, with the help of lawyers victims of crashes are represented fairly and are compensated how they should be. Lawyers take responsibility and fight for their clients to ensure a compensation package that truly reflects the victim’s situation is awarded. Under Enhanced Care, those involved in car accidents will not have the option to sue at-fault drivers unless it was a serious offence, violating the Criminal Code (such as driving intoxicated). Victims will have to rely on ICBC and their government-appointed “Fairness Office” to give them fair compensation. If they don’t feel they have been awarded fairly, there is not really anything that the victim can do. The only option available will be to file a dispute through the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT is part of the justice system, but its processes do not involve the courts.

    Receiving a guaranteed payment of lost wages without having to go through the legal process is convenient, however, the Enhanced Care plan states that only 90% of income will be compensated each week. So, this means that, no matter what, you will be losing 10% of the earnings you’re accustomed to if you’re rendered unable to work after an auto-related injury. Under the current system, you only receive 75% of your income under ICBC’s standard auto insurance. When comparing the two, it seems great – a 15% increase! The big difference is that when a lawyer is hired, victims are traditionally compensated fully and fairly for all their lost earnings.

    Let’s look at what happens to the at-fault drivers. Using ICBC’s example, Sam causes a crash by passing a vehicle too quickly. He is injured as a result and the two others in the vehicle he crashed into are injured as well. All three of those involved are compensated by ICBC through Enhanced Care for the injuries sustained. Unlike in the current plan, Sam would not have to worry about running out of funds for his recovery. He will also receive up to $1,200 each week in wages lost payments. Everyone involved is compensated. Sam, the at-fault driver, “pays” for this through increased insurance premiums, just like in today’s system. Surprisingly, this type of “no-fault” or “care-based” system as ICBC calls it, typically leads to an increase in car accidents because the at-fault drivers are awarded initially with medical reimbursements and wage loss payments. Drivers are held less accountable for their actions as the only monetary repercussions are increased annual premiums for their autoplan.

    Discrimination under Enhanced Care

    Since there will be no lawyers involved in typical car accidents under Enhanced Care, there must be certain guidelines and standards for how compensation will be rewarded to each situation. Let’s look at some of the most notable groups of people that stood out to us.

    The unemployed

    Someone who is unemployed, but able to work, that is injured in a car accident is eligible to receive compensation based on the B.C. Industrial Wage Average (which was $50,691 in 2018). Even if that person was expecting to start employment for $100,000 the next day, they will only be entitled to a figure based off the $50,691 (or whatever the B.C. Industrial Wage Average is at the time) under Enhanced Care.

    Students

    Similar to the unemployed category, post-secondary students can receive some figure based on the B.C. Industrial Wage Average. One new proposed change is that Enhanced Care can reimburse up to $20,000 per year for missed schooling. The downside to this is that a full year of missed schooling could mean a full year of missed salary in the future which could be worth much more than $20,000.

    People making more than $1,200 per week (the maximum allowable for lost wages)

    BC residents who fall under this category will have to buy additional insurance if they want to be fully compensated for lost wages in the case of a vehicle collision. This means that there will be an increase in annual insurance premiums for these people.

    Minors

    Typically, minors will have minimal work experience and their wages reflect this. Wages usually increase quickly as minors gain more and more experience. The Enhanced Care system will lock the minor into a wage compensation package based on their earnings at the time of the injury. If the injury sustained is significant enough to withhold the minor from work or school for a long-period of time, this will have a big impact on their potential earnings.

    It’s important to note that the figures cited in this blog are the maximum allowable under the Enhanced Care system. This does not guarantee by any means that you will be compensated with the stated amounts in the case of a car crash. More likely than not, victims will be awarded less than the stated maximums.

    For a full list of changes under ICBC’s Enhanced Care, see https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-governments/organizational-structure/crown-corporations/enhanced-care-coverage-intentions-paper.pdf

    If you have a question about this topic or another legal issue, contact us for a free legal consultation.  Reach us at 250-888-0002, or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.

  • Cyclist claims for being doored: Who is responsible?

    Cyclist claims for being doored: Who is responsible?

    Driver’s responsibilities don’t end once parked

    Once a driver’s car is safely parked, their responsibility isn’t quite finished.  While getting out of a car can seem like such an innocuous act, there are dangers to ourselves and others. Cyclists in particular are vulnerable to doors opening suddenly in front of them and some are injured every year when this happens.  Some are even killed by winning the door prize and others may face life altering injuries (even when wearing a helmet).  Sadly, being doored remains one of the leading causes of cycling injuries and cyclist claims for compensation in British Columbia.  Equally sad, many of these injuries are very preventable, provided a bit more care and attention is given when exiting a vehicle.

    When a cyclist is doored, who is responsible?

    In British Columbia, the Motor Vehicle Act places responsibility squarely on drivers to keep a lookout for the safety of traffic when exiting their vehicles. There are two simple rules:

    1.  A person must not open the door on the traffic facing side of a vehicle until it’s reasonably safe to do so.

    2.  A person must not leave a door open in moving traffic for longer than is necessary to load or unload passengers.

    Taking a moment to shoulder check and check the rearview mirror prior to opening the car door can prevent seriously injuring a passing cyclist.  Some drivers have taken to being in the habit of “the Dutch reach” using their far hand to open the door – forcing them to shoulder check prior to opening the door.

    Cyclist claims for dooring – What BC courts have decided

    Some cyclist claims for dooming injuries have gone to court in the past for judges to consider the rules and the liability for the injuries that were caused. In Anderson v. Leung, a driver was found 85 percent at fault and a cyclist was found 15 percent at fault when the driver opened the door causing injury to the cyclist.  It should be noted that the cyclist’s 15 percent liability in that case was because the cyclist was not wearing a helmet and as such contributed to his own injuries.  In Halfyard v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, an unidentified passenger who opened their door onto a passing cyclist (and then left the scene) was found 100 percent responsible for the cyclist’s injuries. It’s been established that when a door is opened into traffic and a collision results, the fault usually lies with the person who opened their door into traffic. The decision as to if it was reasonable to open a car door and who is responsible for any resulting collisions will always depend on the exact circumstances, but the best solution is to be aware of your surroundings and check outside your vehicle before the opening a door.  Letting the courts decide who is at fault for an injury (and the associated costs) is always less preferable than preventing the injury in the first place.

    League and Williams is a team of experienced injury lawyers who work with their clients to ensure the best recovery and results possible.  Cyclists who have been injured may be able to make an ICBC claim and can rely on our lawyers’ to ensure that they can focus on recovering from their injuries.  We offer free consultations, pay for treatment when ICBC won’t, and don’t get paid if we don’t get results.  If you have been injured and would like to talk to one of our lawyers about making an ICBC claim, please contact us at 250-888-0002 or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.

  • Drivers Optional? Liability and Fault for Self-Driving Cars

    Drivers Optional? Liability and Fault for Self-Driving Cars

    The Rise of Self-Driving Cars

    Both the popularity and presence of self-driving cars on North American roads is expected to grow in the decades to come with car makers looking to make fully autonomous vehicles an affordable reality.  What’s not to like? A person gets from point A to B in the comfort and convenience of their own vehicle while not having to do the tedious and attention demanding tasks of having to operate the vehicle.  Is this the dawn of a new era? An era where parents are no longer slaves to the transportation demands of their children, the elderly no longer need to fear being told they are no longer fit behind the wheel and those who enjoy a drink or two no longer need to cab or have a designated driver.  Are the days of carnage and casualty caused by driver error numbered?  When accidents involving self-driving cars happen will their owners still be held responsible or will manufacturers have to share in responsibility for the damage caused?

    The Days of Driver Error May Not be Numbered

    There have been cases where vehicles in “auto-pilot” mode have been in accidents.  As an example, in May 2016, a man was fatally injured while driving down a Florida highway at 119 km/h using his Tesla’s Autopilot driving system.  The Tesla collided with a tractor-trailer that had emerged onto the road from an intersection.   Immediately after the accident, Tesla indicated that the collision was because the camera on the car failed to recognize the tractor trailer due to the brightness of the sky that day.  It first appeared as though the car was to blame for the accident.

    A subsequent US Federal investigation into the accident determined that the autopilot function was designed to detect motor vehicles in the same lane and prevent front-to-rear collisions but was not designed for situations where cars appear from intersections to enter or cross the road. The investigators believed that the autopilot system was not responsible for the accident as it had performed as designed, but rather its use in a situation for which it was not designed (a road with intersections) was the cause of the accident.  The federal investigation determined that the accident was ultimately the result of driver error as the driver had completely relied on the autopilot function when he should not have and had the driver remained vigilant, the collision would have likely been avoided.

    Advanced Driver Assistance is Not a Green Light to Drive Distracted or Under the Influence

    The US Federal investigation determined that a vehicle equipped with an advanced driver assistance system, or auto-pilot, still requires the continuous and undivided attention of the driver to monitor the road ahead of them (and intervene if appropriate).  As such, drivers are still needed, and that failing to provide an appropriately trained and skilled person behind the wheel can result in personal liability should these kinds of systems fail if appropriate driver intervention could have avoided the crash.  It would also appear that having the car in “auto-pilot” mode would be no defense against a distracted driving charge nor would it be a defense for a person who was driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

    The Road from Driver Error to Product Liability

    Drivers are still needed and will ultimately be held responsible if they fail to operate their vehicles responsibly.  However, it is imaginable that car crash cases where the manufacturer of the car or the manufacturer of components of the self-driving features of the car are argued to have contributed will become more common.  It is also imaginable that fully autonomous vehicles will become a reality in the decades to come and will challenge the law and car insurance to evolve – an “unfit” driver might someday be irrelevant to the case at hand.  In the meantime, as vehicles with advanced driver assistance including auto-pilot, like the Tesla Model S, become more popular; road users will need to appreciate the limits of the technology to avoid carnage and casualty.

    Indeed, it appears that the business of injury law related to car crashes is unlikely to become obsolete any time soon, although it may get far more complex in the years to come with the introduction of self-driving vehicles. Those in accidents involving a self-driving car may benefit from experienced legal advice that can assist them in navigating their claim.  If you or someone you care about has been in an accident in BC and needs legal advice, the injury lawyers at League and Williams help their clients recover their fullest potential, provide free consultations and do not get paid until the claim is resolved.  To contact our lawyers call 250-888-0002 or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.

  • Form versus Function: Women’s Riding Gear

    Form versus Function: Women’s Riding Gear

    No rider plans to be in accident, but it happens, even to the safest of riders.  When these accidents happen, the gear worn matters and can make a big difference. Good quality riding gear minimizes the risk of severe injuries and can save a rider’s life. Investing in proper riding gear is essential – but must women sacrifice function for fashion?

    As a motorcycle rider who enjoys spending time on her bike, and as an injury law paralegal working as part of the League and Williams team, it is my pleasure to make the case that safety should never be foregone for style, and that today’s riding gear manufacturers are up to speed on women riders’ need for fashion. Simply put, there are no excuses to be improperly outfitted before hitting the road on your bike – women can look great while ensuring that safety is not sacrificed.

    Ensuring your Riding Gear is Good to Go: Minimum Requirements

    Many riders may not be aware of the minimum standards that their riding gear should meet. At a minimum women’s riding gear should include:

    • An approved helmet; ensure that it is DOT, Snell or ECE rated – this is perhaps the most important piece of gear a rider owns, protecting against brain injuries, as well as eye and face injuries;
    • A 1.2-1.4mm leather jacket or an approved textile jacket – a good jacket can protect a rider from severe lacerations and abrasions that can happen in a crash; jackets with armour offer more complete protection and if choosing a thinner jacket (less than 1.2mm), investing in the armour will offer better protection;
    • Gloves;
    • Boots, with at least a 6” shaft (from bottom of the foot to top of the boot); and,
    • Proper riding pants (again, leather or textile, with or without armour) offer more complete protection.

    Investing in the Jacket – Four Suggestions from One Rider to Another

    Finding a suitable riding jacket that meets safety standards, looks great, and fits a rider’s budget can be a challenge. Having recently completed this challenge myself, I am happy to provide the following suggestions. After all, after a rider’s helmet, a suitable riding jacket is a key investment that will be worn for years to come. Thankfully, the industry has recognized women riders’ need for function, form and price. There are some great options out there that offer great protection, will turn heads on and off the bike and won’t break the bank. My four top picks include:

    1. Roland Sands Design (RSD, @rolandsands) the Maven, available in black or oxblood.  This jacket offers top grain pre-oiled cowhide (1.1-1.3 mm); perforated; performance fit; equipped for RSD armour (sold separately). This year’s model, the Riot, is made thinner for even better style, at only 0.8mm-0.9mm; this might suffice in warmer weather but the Maven would be a better option for three-season riding in Canada.  The Maven or the Riot will run you about $850-$900CAD and can be found at Town Moto (@townmoto).
    2. Black Arrow – Ain’t No Sissy Motorcycle Jacket. This is a favourite for style, and equipped for armour (again, sold separately), but like the Riot, may be too thin for Canadian riding in Spring and fall.  This jacket costs about $650CAD.
    3. Alpinestars (@alpinestars)  Vika line – coordinating pants, gloves and boots available.  This is one stylish, yet safe, line. If the budget allows, it is possible to be totally outfitted in safety while feeling like a model!  Like the Roland Sands Design and Black Arrow, the Vika line is armour-ready but the amour is sold separately.  Again, this line may not offer the warmth needed for Canadian shoulder-season riding.
    4. On a tighter budget?  Check out the women’s line at First Manufacturing Company (@FirstMfg), offering stylish, safe and armour ready jackets at very reasonable prices.  You may have to ship up from the US; however, Town Moto does carry at least one of their jackets, the Warrior Princess, at $350CAD.  Unlike the more expensive options above, most of First Manufacturing Company’s jackets come equipped with full-sleeve zip out liners, making them a great three season choice for Canadian riders.  I am happy to don the #FMCPrincessCut myself.

    Form and function in riding gear that is good to go.
    Women’s riding gear that is good to go: Helena’s picks.

    If you are looking for a stylish helmet too, my favourite is the Gringo S line by Biltwell.

    Many riders could benefit by also equipping themselves with a high-definition helmet camera.  Riders may enter to win a high definition helmet cam from League and Williams lawyers, by going to our Facebook page and commenting “League and Williams has your back” on the Hindsight: 1080p post – draw happens on July 12, 2017.

    Even with the appropriate gear, when accidents happen, even to the safest of riders, injuries can be significant. It is good to know that the injury lawyers and legal team at League and Williams has your back. Our legal team pays for treatment when ICBC won’t, offers free consultations, and works to get injured riders their best recoveries. If you’re injured in a motorcycle accident, we may be contacted either by phone at 250-888-0002 or by email at info@leaguelaw.com. We serve clients across British Columbia.

  • Red Flags with Victoria’s Protected Bike Lanes and Green Boxes

    Red Flags with Victoria’s Protected Bike Lanes and Green Boxes

    Protected Bike Lanes on Pandora Open to Mixed Reviews

    On Monday, May 1, 2017 the Pandora St. protected bike lanes officially opened to the public. The intent of this two-lane track that runs from Wharf St. to Cook St. is to separate bike traffic from car traffic and make cycling more efficient and safer.  While the intention is honourable, the immediate result has been confusion and many near-misses between motorists, pedestrians and cyclists.  Road (and crosswalk) users will have to adapt to significant changes in their usual behavior at intersections along Pandora.  However, it should be noted, where this kind of bike lane has been implemented elsewhere, improvements in safety have been realized.

    Motorists, Cyclists and Pedestrians Face a Learning Curve

    Motorists will no longer be able to make right turns on red lights at intersections, and must stop behind the green bike boxes away from the intersection.  Cyclists have to maneuver to enter and exit the bike lanes through “green boxes” that are far from intuitive and involve turning right to go left, and vice versa. The City has had to produce a four-minute video to explain how the protected bike lane works – it is doubtful many cyclists, motorists or pedestrians will absorb the video.  The City has stationed employees at the intersections to explain to road users how to navigate the new “facilities” – it is unclear how long these employees will be stationed there as the tourist season progresses.  The forecast calls for confusion and flared tempers, and sadly a significant chance of serious injuries as people adjust to this new norm.

    No Requirement to Use the Bike Lane Provided

    While many motorists are glad to see the dedicated bike lanes, some are not.  Even some cyclists ask if they have to use the bike lanes, many of them nervous that motorists and pedestrians won’t know how to behave around the bicycles that enter and leave the green boxes in a bizarre fashion that involves turning their bikes 180 degrees. However, whether people like it or not, the law does not require cyclists to use the protected bike lanes simply because they are available. If a cyclist is injured by a vehicle outside of the protected bike lane, the court will not find the cyclist negligent for not using the bike lane just because it was there, provided the cyclist’s actions were not otherwise the cause of the accident.

    If Protected Bike Lanes Prove Hazardous, Can the City be Held Liable?

    Importantly, BC courts have said: “a municipality has a duty to maintain roads in a reasonably safe condition. The duty extends to taking reasonable steps to prevent injury to users of the roads caused by hazardous conditions… such as those arising from the design or configuration of the road.”  The point to be drawn from the foregoing is that a municipality’s duty extends to maintaining and configuring its roads, such that they are safe for use by someone using ordinary care.

    How cyclists are required to navigate Victoria’s new bike lanes, as well as how motorists and pedestrians are expected to behave around them, is now far from ordinary for the typical road user (watch the video and you will see).  This means that the City may find that a cyclist, pedestrian or motorist is injured because of a confusing or otherwise unsafe road design that a person exercising ordinary care would not expect, may hold the City responsible for their injuries. Such a claim does not involve ICBC paying for the City’s negligence.

    Many people do not know that there is a very short time limit for notifying the City that its design or implementation of the new bike lane has caused someone harm. The BC Local Government Act states that a local government “is in no case liable for damages unless notice in writing, setting out the time, place and manner in which the damage has been sustained, is delivered to the municipality… within 2 months from the date on which the damage was sustained.”  This means that if the City is not notified of an injury within 60 days of the accident, the City will bear no responsibility regardless of how severe the injuries are.  Hopefully no injuries arise as tourists and locals learn how to use the new protected bike lanes, but if they are, they should not overlook the requirement to give notice to the City within the 60 days required by the Local Government Act.

    Darren Williams is the principal lawyer with League and Williams and leads the personal injury area of practice of the firm.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident, we would like to help you recover.  League and Williams offers free consultations, does not get paid until you do and is focused on ensuring that you recover to your fullest potential.  League and Williams is headquartered in Victoria, BC with satellite offices in Duncan, Nanaimo and Campbell River.  We may be contacted via email at info@leaguelaw.com or phone at 250-888-0002.

  • Crosswalk, or Not? That is the Question

    Crosswalk, or Not? That is the Question

    League and Williams Lawyers recently ran a contest on our Facebook page, asking whether or not the picture was of a crosswalk – with those who answered and liked our page being entered into a draw for a high-definition dash camera.

    Crosswalk or not? That is the Question
    Is this a crosswalk?

    There was passionate interest and response to our post.  Yes!  No!  What!?  Revealing a common misunderstanding about the BC Motor Vehicle Act (“MVA”) and how judges interpret it.

    A large share of people would say “no”, this isn’t a crosswalk because there are no lines on the road or pedestrian signals.  On that basis alone, they would be incorrect – sorry.  The MVA provides that the rights of a pedestrian in a “crosswalk” includes an “unmarked crosswalk”.  An “unmarked crosswalk” is the portion of an intersection (including a T-intersection like in the photo) within the extension of the lines of sidewalks on one or more sides of an intersection; in other words, draw a line across the street from the end of the sidewalk.  So, even if there are no lines on the road (or lights), the area between the ends of the extensions of a sidewalk, even if unmarked, is a crosswalk!

    But wait!  Maybe the “no’s” in this case aren’t wrong after all?!  The photo does not show that the sidewalk approaching from the right actually reaches the curb – the sidewalk stops at the intersection of the other crosswalk, leaving a grassy area between the end of the sidewalk and the road (a boulevard).  Importantly, one BC Court has said if such a grassy area was maintained by the local government and was meant to be walked on, then it doesn’t matter that the sidewalk didn’t actually join with the road – it was still an “improvement for pedestrians” (and therefore a sidewalk that ended in an unmarked crosswalk)!  The loser of that decision (the driver) appealed to BC’s highest court, which disagreed with the lower court and said, in that specific case, that because there was no sidewalk at all, and the city made no effort to maintain the boulevard, that the area was not “improved for pedestrians” and therefore not part of the “sidewalk” that met the road – the result was the injured child crossing the street was not in an unmarked crosswalk.  Basically, it boiled down to whether the city maintained the small area between the adjacent house and the street!

    In the case of this picture, the court would likely find that “yes” this is an unmarked “crosswalk” because the grassy area between the sidewalk and the road is clearly improved (leveled, seeded and mowed), despite there being no extension of the sidewalk to the curb, a let-down, paint on the road, or other signals.

    So what!?  If a pedestrian is crossing in an “unmarked crosswalk” (like this one) from the side of the street your car is approaching on, then they have the right of way, unless they step into the street in a manner that gives you no practicable means of stopping.  In other words, pedestrians cannot rely on an unmarked crosswalk to surprise drivers.  That said, the law requires drivers approach all intersections, especially intersections like this one in a residential area where children and other pedestrians are common, in a cautious manner (i.e. expecting someone might step out).

    Sadly, some drivers approach pedestrians in unmarked crosswalks aggressively and challenge them for “jay-walking”, when they in fact have the right of way.  Don’t be that driver.  Approach every intersection with caution and humility, knowing your car can kill.

    Thank you for caring about this issue.  Please answer our future road safety quizzes and share them with friends to help save lives (and insurance premiums).

    Because of the difficulty of this question, everyone who liked our page (not just commented) was entered to win…. and the winner is… Joe Battler!  Congratulations Joe!

    If you have a question about this topic or another legal issue, contact us for a legal consultation.  Reach us at 250-888-0002, or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.

  • Slow Down and Move Over, It’s BC Law (video blog)

    Slow Down and Move Over, It’s BC Law (video blog)

    Slow down and move over – It’s a matter of safety

    Despite slow down and move over being the law since January 2015, many people still forget that the BC Motor Vehicle Act requires people approaching any official vehicle parked on the side of the road to slow down and, if safe to do so, move into a lane away from the official vehicle.  This law is important because motorists often find themselves approaching official vehicles parked on the side of the road, and even split second inattention when passing a vehicle closely, can lead to tragic consequences including serious injury and death.

    Indeed, in the last 10 years, more than 250 people working on the side of the road, including police officers and paramedics, have been struck while helping others and more than a dozen have lost their lives as a result.  So, I would like to help clear up some common points of misunderstanding about this law.

    When does the slow down and move over apply?

    First, the slow down and move over law applies to all “official vehicles”, not just police, fire, and ambulance.  Official vehicles include tow trucks, highway and municipal maintenance trucks, Commercial Vehicle Safety Enforcement vehicles, park ranger and conservation officer vehicles, utility vehicles, land surveyors, animal control vehicles and garbage trucks.   As a rule, when you see a blue, red, or even a yellow flashing light, you should assume that vehicle is an official vehicle and the slow down and move over law applies.

    What does slow down and move over mean?

    The law requires people to slow down, and also move over if safe to do so.  These requirements apply particularly to those people approaching in the lane that is closest to where the official vehicle is parked.  However, it also applies to vehicles traveling on the side of the road opposite to where the official vehicle is parked, if there is no median in the middle of the road, and if the side of the road closest to where the official vehicle is parked only has one lane.

    Also, importantly, the requirement to slow down is that if the speed limit in the area is 80km/h or above, such as 110km/h, you must slow down to below 70km/h, and if the speed limit is below 80km/h, you must slow down to at least 40km/h.  This is often referred to as the 70/40 rule.

    Lastly, the requirement to move over applies only if it is “safe to do so”.  For example, when you’re traveling in a lane closest to the official vehicle and there is a second lane going in the same direction, you must pull into that inside lane unless it is unsafe to do so.  What is safe, will obviously depend on the specific circumstances of each case.  For example, there might be a car next to you in that inside lane, but that does not necessarily make it unsafe to move over. It is likely appropriate to slow down to allow the car next to you to pass to create room for you to move over to the inside lane.

    Also, if there are only two lanes in the roadway, both going in opposite directions, you must pull into the oncoming lane of traffic if it is safe to do so, in other words, if there are no oncoming cars.

    What are the consequences for not slowing down and moving over?

    I’ve seen numerous people been ticketed for failing to comply with the slow down and move over law. Many of them caught on dash cameras.  The resulting fine is $173, and importantly there are three driver penalty points assigned to your license.  You may know that if you earn more than 3 points in one 12-month period, ICBC will force you to pay a driver penalty premium.  This premium is in addition to any other ICBC premiums you might pay, and can be collected from you even if you don’t insure a vehicle with ICBC.  For example, a person who is given 6 driver penalty points in a 12-month period will pay an additional $300 in penalty premium, and a person who earns 10 driver penalty points, will pay an additional $905 in penalty premium that year.

    The financial consequences aside, clearly slowing down and moving over is the right move.

    I hope you have learned something about the law from this blog.  Please feel free to like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter and subscribe to our YouTube channel to receive notice of our future weekly video blogs on the law.

    Darren Williams is the principal lawyer at League and Williams Lawyers where he leads the injury law practice.  He has more than 16 years of experience working in BC injury law and has the knowledge and experience to get results.  League and Williams Lawyers offers free consultations and may be contacted at 250-888-0002 in Victoria, 250-746-0002 in Duncan, 250-591-1056 in Nanaimo and 250-914-4529 in Campbell River or via email info@leaguelaw.com.

  • Social Host Liability & Holiday Party Law (Video Blog)

    Social Host Liability & Holiday Party Law (Video Blog)

    Holiday Cheer May Bring Legal Liabilities

    Welcome to this week’s blog on the law.  As the holiday season approaches many people and businesses plan on hosting holiday parties.  Most of these parties involve serving alcohol, which in turn gives rise to certain legal responsibilities for the host of the party.  This area of law is called “social host liability”, and in this week’s blog I will outline some important points of social host liability.

    What is Social Host Liability?

    In 2006, Canada’s highest court found that a social host does not, as a general rule, have a duty to protect the public from a guest who consumes alcohol.  That case involved someone who hosted a house party, and told their guests to bring their own booze.  The host did not serve any alcohol, and did not see that one of the guests was intoxicated before the guest left the party and badly injured another person in a car accident.  However, the court’s decision would likely have been different if the host was serving alcohol to its guests, or the host saw that the guest was intoxicated when they left the party.

    People who serve alcohol as part of their business, such as restaurants and pubs, do have a duty to the general motoring public to ensure people they serve alcohol to do not pose an unreasonable risk to others.  Most businesses address this duty by training their staff to monitor customers drinking and providing means to access safe rides home.

    Also employers who host holiday office parties owe a duty to their employees because there is generally an expectation of supervision in an employment relationship, and this supervision often includes what people do at office parties.  On the other hand, people who are hosting a house party for friends, may owe a duty to people who might be harmed by their guests if the host is providing alcohol to their guests, or they observe their guests to be intoxicated when they leave the party.  These duties mean that if someone is hurt as a result of not complying with a duty, they can be sued.

    Tips to Keep Holiday Cheer from Turning into Legal Liabilities

    If you are hosting a Christmas party, particularly if you are an employer who is hosting a party for your employees, here are some quick tips to help address your duty to reduce the risk of harm coming to others:

    1.   Choose you party location wisely.

      Avoid having your party in a location where you know it is difficult for people to obtain safe rides home from.  If you are an employer, try to have your party at a licensed establishment, such as a restaurant or pub.  The duty the business has to safely serve and monitor guests is greater than the duty of the employer to monitor their guests, and will help to protect people from guests who have too much to drink.

    2.   If you have an open bar, staff the bar with a qualified bartender.

      If it is decided to host your party somewhere other than a licensed commercial establishment, such as a restaurant or pub, it is wise to staff the bar with someone who is qualified to be a bartender.  A counter full of booze for people to help themselves is generally a bad idea.  You do not need to track people’s drinks by having “drink tickets”, but someone who is tasked with serving drinks that can monitor those who appear impaired will help protect that person, and others, from harm.  If you are an employer that is paying for the alcohol, you should either provide drink tickets to limit the consumption, or close the “open bar” well before the end of the party to prevent over consumption.  An employer paying for unlimited alcohol is far more responsible for its effects than an employer who limits it availability.

    3.  Serve food throughout the evening.

      Serving food throughout the evening will not only reduce the effects of alcohol consumed, but will also typically reduce the amount of alcohol consumed.

    4. Always have options for your guests to find a safe ride home.

      You cannot force a guest to accept a safe ride home, but making them available goes a long ways to avoiding harm.  If you invite a friend who you know likes to drink, think ahead about how you will help get them home, don’t leave it until the end of the night to figure out.  Make it easy for your guests to make good decisions about getting home safely.

    5. Invite the family, or at least the spouse or significant other.

      The purpose of holiday office parties, is of course to celebrate a year’s work well done.  As a result, holiday office parties often involve a great deal of cheer and enthusiasm by employees, particularly when alcohol is involved.  Accidents and even conflicts are not uncommon, but people tend to drink less or at least behave better, when their spouses are around, and particularly if their children are present.  Guests often still enjoy their drinks, but to less of an extreme if their family is there.

      Wishing Everyone a Merry (and Safe) Holiday Season and New Year

    In closing, nobody likes a party pooper, but nothing wrecks a holiday season more than a death or injury that could have been avoided.  All of us at League and Williams, wish all of you a merry (and safe) holiday season.  I hope you have learned something about the law from this blog.  Please feel free to like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter and subscribe to our YouTube channel to receive notice of our future weekly video blogs on the law.

    If you have been in an accident, do not hesitate to contact us at 250-888-0002 or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.

  • ICBC Hit and Run Accident Claims (Video Blog)

    ICBC Hit and Run Accident Claims (Video Blog)

    ICBC Hit and Run Claims

    British Columbia insurance law makes sure that every vehicle licensed in this province carries at least basic coverage of $200,000 in third party liability insurance through ICBC.  This basic level of required ICBC coverage means that if someone else injures you with their vehicle, you at least have some certainty that you will at least have access to some insurance funds.  Even if the minimum insurance is inadequate for most serious injuries, the driver that injured you will be able to, at least a certain extent, compensate you for things such as your lost wages, medical expenses not covered by the medical services plan (MSP), and for your pain and suffering.  To access this coverage, however, you need to know who the other driver was, or at least have enough information so that the vehicle can be found and the appropriate insurance policy identified.  But what happens if the driver that hurt you fled the scene of the accident and you can’t identify either the driver or the vehicle?

    Some insurance coverage is still available even if your collision was a hit and run.  Section 24 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act still provides basic coverage through ICBC for anyone injured by a vehicle in BC, even if the vehicle or driver can’t actually be identified.  This coverage provides up to $200,000, the same amount as the minimum provided by any BC licensed vehicle.

    This insurance is last resort, however, and isn’t available if there is other insurance coverage available elsewhere, such as if the vehicle’s owner can be found but not the driver.  There are also requirements that you be proactive in attempting to identify the other driver, which usually means making a police report and attempting to find witnesses.

    In addition to still not being able to identify the driver after taking reasonable steps, there are two other requirements to access this coverage through ICBC:

    1. That the incident leading to the injury must have occurred on a highway in British Columbia, and;
    2. That the injury came from the use or operation of a motor vehicle.

    A highway in BC has a broader meaning than the usual sense and is broadly defined as most roadways that are meant for public use.  Beyond this, it’s not necessary that you have any insurance of your own to access this coverage or for you to prove that the driver that injured you actually had any insurance.  This is because hit and run coverage is a matter of public policy intended to ensure those without a way to directly access the insurance of the person that hurt them won’t be left entirely unprotected from the actions of someone who has wronged them twice, first in the collision, and second by leaving the scene.

    If you do have your own vehicle insurance, this provincial hit and run coverage also extends to the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and the United States, provided you can show that another vehicle hit you.

    Accessing hit and run coverage can be a technical area of insurance law with some strict time limits in reporting the collision and making a claim.  If you find yourself in a situation where you were injured by an unknown driver, you should contact an injury lawyer experienced in making ICBC hit and run claims as soon as possible to make sure that you preserve your rights.

    If you have a question about this issue topic or another legal issues, please feel free to contact us for a free legal consultation.  We may be reached at our offices at 250-888-0002, or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.

  • Video Blog: Speeding Cyclists and BC Law

    Video Blog: Speeding Cyclists and BC Law

    School Zones, Speeding Cyclists and BC Law

    Last week, a local cyclist was ticketed for speeding in a school zone.  The event attracted considerable news attention and a lot of discussion on social media – with many wondering if speeding cyclists are subject to the Motor Vehicle Act.  In this week’s blog, we will discuss how BC’s Motor Vehicle Act applies to bicycles and why this might be.  Viewers should be warned that some of the images in the above vlog may be disturbing to some viewers.

    Despite being call the “Motor” Vehicle Act, section 183 of the BC’s Motor Vehicle Act states:

    In addition to the duties imposed by this section, a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle.

    In other words, all of the rights and duties provided to cars, apply to bicycles as well.  This applies to speed limits, the manner in which bicycles and vehicles enter and leave roadways, and how they negotiate intersections and interact with each other.  In my view, this is a good thing. There is a significant power indifference between motor vehicles and bicycles, and similarly, between bicycles and pedestrians.  Speeding cyclists are a road safety hazard.

    It may seem obvious that, because of the simple physics of mass times velocity, a vehicle can cause more damage to a cyclist, than a cyclist to a pedestrian, but that comparison bears little comfort for a pedestrian who suffered a brain injury when they are knocked to the ground by a careless cyclist.  In other words, an object traveling at speed does not need to weigh even a fraction of what a vehicle weighs in order to cause significant injury.  Section 183 provides for pedestrians the same increase in safety from being injured by cyclists, as it provides cyclists from being injured by motorists.

    Lack of Liability Insurance Carried by Cyclists Put Victims at Peril

    What many people overlook in this debate is that while every person, including a cyclist or pedestrian, injured by a motor vehicle in BC will have some form of insurance coverage to help pay for medical expenses and wage loss while they are injured, the same is sadly not true of pedestrians injured by speeding cyclists.  In other words, ICBC and private automobile insurers will not pay for the medical expenses or wage loss of a pedestrian injured by a cyclist.  It is only if the cyclist has liability insurance through their home or renters insurance that they will have some source of money to help pay for the injured person’s expenses.  If that insurance is not available, the cyclist will be personally responsible to pay for the injured person’s expenses. Often, this can mean personal bankruptcy for the cyclist, as many injuries result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.  Both the injured pedestrian and the cyclist are the ultimate losers in that scenario.

    Imagine for a moment a cyclist speeding though a school zone, colliding with a small child who is crossing the road, leaving the child with a brain injury.  The cyclist would likely have no insurance and the child would be left with minimal resources to pay for medical care and income loss through their life.  In short, there is good reason the safety precautions set out in the Motor Vehicle Act apply to bicycles as well as motor vehicles.

    Inability to Gauge Speed is No Excuse

    In closing, I reviewed one blog in the last few days that questioned whether a cyclist should be ticketed for speeding when bicycles do not have a speedometers and therefore cannot gauge their speed.  This raises an interesting issue that we will cover in more detail in a future blog, but for the time being, it will suffice to say that cyclists should always err on the side of caution if they are unable to reasonably judge their speed.

    If you have a question about this issue topic or another legal issues, please feel free to contact us for a free legal consultation.  We may be reached at our offices at 250-888-0002, or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.