League and Williams Lawyers

Category: Video Blogs

  • The Dog Got Us Sued: Liability for Acts of Dog (Video Blog)

    The Dog Got Us Sued: Liability for Acts of Dog (Video Blog)

    The Legal Liability for Dogs

    This week we are talking about legal liability for dogs.  That is, if a dog injures someone or causes property damage, what are the consequences, and how can they be reduced, or even avoided entirely?  This discussion applies to both dogs that you might own, but also dogs owned by others that might be under your care, or even simply because they are on your property.  Dog owners can be very passionate about their dogs, and sensitive to the criticism of others, much like someone would be about their own children.  Indeed, dogs are not only our best friends, they are members of our families.

    This blog is not about any particular breed of dog, or how their owners train or care for them.  Indeed, every breed of dog can be completely harmless, and also quite dangerous, depending on the circumstances.  Rather, this discussion is about how the law may hold the owner of ANY dog responsible for injury, death or damage caused by a dog, and why having insurance is critical.

    Three Ways the Law Holds People Accountable for Dogs

    There are three principle ways that the law holds people responsible for harm caused by a dog.

    The first is under general negligence law. This means that if the behaviour of the dog could cause foreseeable harm to others, the person whose control the dog is under has a responsibility to prevent the harm.  This is true regardless of the ownership of the dog, or the location of the dog.  For example, if you take a friend’s dog to an on-leash park, you let the dog off the leash, and the dog knocks an elderly person to the ground breaking their hip, you will likely be responsible for their injuries.

    The second ground on which you may be legally responsible for injury caused by a dog, is if it occurs on property controlled by you.  This is because in BC, a person who controls property must take reasonable steps to ensure activities conducted on the property do not pose unreasonable risks to others on the property.  For example, you decide to host a backyard barbecue and invite all your friends to bring their dogs.  You might know some of the dogs don’t get along but you hope for the best.  During the barbecue a dog fight ensures, and a guest is badly bitten, suffering nerve damage and they are unable to use their dominant hand to work.  Even though you don’t own the dog, because of your duty to ensure people are reasonably safe in using the property, you may be responsible for the injuries.

    The last legal basis for liability is based on an old legal maxim called scienter – which is Latin for, essentially, knowledge of poor behaviour.  Scienter means that if you own a dog, the dog has demonstrated a dangerous behaviour previously, and you knew that it had, you may be liable if that behaviour hurts someone.  For example, a dog owner is aware their dog likes to chase motorcycles because they have seen the dog chase motorcycles.  One day the owner forgets to tie the dog up and it chases another motorcycle and the motorcyclist loses control and is badly injured.  The dog owner would likely be entirely at fault for the accident.

    These are all tragic, but entirely realistic scenarios.

    How can dog owners reduce their legal risk?

    So, besides having your dog under a degree of control that is appropriate for the circumstances, what can dog owners do to reduce their legal risk?  The answer is: insurance.  Many people don’t know that their homeowners insurance policy includes $1 million in liability insurance that will pay for a legal defence and any money that they have to pay as a result of injury or damage caused by their dog.  This is true even if the accident happens when you and your dog are away from the property, such as at the park.  The same is true of renter’s or tenant’s insurance policies, and such insurance often only costs about $35 per month.  In the last 10 years, approximately 25% of all claims made under homeowner’s and renter’s insurance policies were made as a result of a dog causing injury or property damage.  In the last several years the average value of dog related insurance claims has been $35,000 and $50,000.  Obviously, no dog owner wants to be responsible for this type of debt.  If you are not a homeowner or renter, or a family member living with someone who is, you likely do not have liability insurance if your dog gets you sued.  However, you can buy separate liability insurance. Any insurance broker can help you with this.

    In closing, if you are a dog owner, regardless of the breed, the responsible thing to do is ensure you have insurance to protect you, and any person that might be injured by your dog.  Rarely does any dog intend to cause any harm, but unfortunately the intent of a dog matters not when you are the one being sued.  I hope you found this blog helpful and thank you for watching.

    We hope you have learned something from this week’s video blog.  Please feel free to like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, or subscribe to our YouTube channel to receive notice of our future weekly video blogs on the law.  League and Williams is a Victoria, BC based law firm with expertise in injury law, estate disputes and marine law and may be reached via email at info@leaguelaw.com or phone at 250-888-0002.  If you are injured and would like a free consult, give us a call.  We are here to help injured parties get the fair compensation that they are entitled to.

  • Video Surveillance and ICBC Injury Claims – Fair Game or Foul Play?

    Video Surveillance and ICBC Injury Claims – Fair Game or Foul Play?

    Insurance adjusters and defence lawyers alike will often attempt to prove that the injured person is not really as injured as they are claiming, and video surveillance may be used as a tool in support of this defence.  Injury claimants are subject to scrutiny and it is an unfortunate reality that some injury claimants will be videoed while going about their day-to-day business after making an injury claim.  Sadly, those who are most severely injured with potentially large claims are also most likely to have the insurer use video surveillance in their case.

    Video Surveillance: What is Fair Game and What is Foul Play after an Injury Claim?

    There are several standard defences to personal injury claims that are considered by insurance adjusters and defence lawyers in every injury claim they handle.  One of these standard defences is to say that you are not really as injured as you or your doctors say you are, or in some cases, to even claim that you are not really injured at all.  In more serious, complicated and contentious injury cases, video surveillance is occasionally used as a tool to prove this defence.  The law in BC provides that if you are in public view, and not in a place where you would expect to have privacy, this type of surveillance is permitted.

    For example, it is lawful to take video of someone as they are lifting groceries out of their trunk in the grocery store parking lot, or chopping wood in their front yard.  On the other hand, it is not lawful to take video of someone when they are in the privacy of their living room or within their private backyard.

    Injury Claimants should Expect Some Scrutiny after Making a Claim

    It is true that when you make an injury claim, you are, to a certain extent, opening up your life to scrutiny.  Medical records, employment files, and school transcripts may be disclosed and examined as part of proving your claim, but being videoed is an intrusion into privacy of an entirely different sort.

    Dos and Don’ts after an Injury Claim

    If you have an injury claim and think that you may be surveilled, the best course of action is to carry on living your life as best as your injuries allow:

    • Do not to take risks or expose yourself to physical strain that may worsen your injuries,
    • Do not exaggerate your injuries,
    • Do not undertake activities your doctor has advised against, but;
    • Do your reasonable best not to allow your injuries to interfere with your normal life.

    The common purpose of surveillance is to capture someone doing something they said they couldn’t do.  It’s important to remember that video surveillance footage is taken only in the most serious or contentious cases.  Even when it is taken, it is often not used in court.  This is simply because almost all people with personal injury claims are honest about their injuries and disabilities.

    If you’ve been truthful with those supporting you through your injury and recovery, such as your employer, your doctors, and your lawyer, then there is little that video surveillance can capture that is likely to be damaging to your case.

    We hope you have learned something from this week’s video 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.  League and Williams is a Victoria, BC based law firm with expertise in injury law, estate disputes and marine law and may be reached via email at info@leaguelaw.com or phone at 250-888-0002.  If you are injured and would like a free consult, give us a call for a free consult.  We are here to help injured parties get the fair compensation that they are entitled to.

  • Spied on by my Vibrator? A Peek between the Sheets of BC’s Privacy Laws (Video Blog)

    Spied on by my Vibrator? A Peek between the Sheets of BC’s Privacy Laws (Video Blog)

    Hello, and welcome to this week’s blog on the law.  This week we are taking a peek between the sheets of BC’s privacy laws as they pertain to the ever growing array of internet connected consumer devices that may be collecting your personal information.

    The Case of the Spying Vibrator

    Last week, a Canadian company that manufactures a Bluetooth and Wi-Fi connectable personal massage device, also known as a vibrator, was sued for breaching privacy laws.  Although the lawsuit was commenced in the United States, the defendant company is Canadian, relating to a vibrator commonly sold in BC, and involves privacy laws that are similar to those in force in BC.

    In this recent case the We-Vibe Rave vibrator, which uses Bluetooth or Wi-Fi to connect with a smart phone app and allows users to control various settings on the vibrator remotely over the internet, is alleged to have collected data about the patterns of use of the device, including times and frequency of use.  This lawsuit is reflective of a growing industry of internet connected devices, ranging from vehicles and home thermostats, to refrigerators and washing machines, to other more, shall we say, personal devices.  The evolving industry of connected consumer devices, commonly referred to as the “internet of things” (IOT), poses interesting challenges for privacy laws.

    Importantly, the recent vibrator case alleges that the software used to connect users to the device collects and transmits enough information, including an email address, to enable the person using the device to be identified in the data collected.  None of these allegations have been proven in court.  However, in a world where small and large scale data breaches are common place, the idea that the pattern of use of someone’s vibrator has been collected, and therefore might be disclosed, could be terrifying.   For some, this data might not only be personally embarrassing, but imagine your employer learning the device was in use at 3pm on a weekday when you were at work.  The problems this type of data breach could raise are only limited by your imagination.

    BC Privacy Laws and the Internet of Things

    So, what does BC law do to protect people from their personal information being collected by others?

    BC’s Personal Information Protection Act provides that a business cannot collect “personal information” without a person’s consent.  But what is “personal information”?

    This is answered by a two-part test.

    • Firstly, it must be information that is reasonably capable of identifying a particular individual, either alone or when combined with other available information, such as an email address or IP address, and,
    • Secondly, it must be information that is collected, used or disclosed for a purpose related to the individual.

    Regarding the first part of the test, data that is collected along with the person’s name or email address, is obviously information reasonably capable of identifying that person.  But what about the second part of the test, whether the purpose of collecting the information is related to the individual?

    In the case of an internet connected vibrator, the manufacturer might say they are collecting data about the frequency and duration of use of the vibrator, along with its resulting battery life, as a means of improving future versions of the product or monitoring for defects, and therefore the data collected relates to the device, and not the individual using it.  Sounds logical, right?

    Unfortunately, no.  Although the law is less than clear in this area, when the nature of the data makes it easier to determine the identity of an individual using the device, the more likely the collection of the data is a privacy breach.  For example, data being collected about the mere number of passengers getting on and off a public bus is not a privacy breach because that data does not tell us anything about a particular individual.  However, in the case of consumer items that are typically only used by one individual, such as an internet connected toothbrush, or a vibrator, collecting data from these devices where that person can reasonably be identified, is likely illegal, even if the intended purpose is not to collect data about the individual.

    That said, the exception to this rule against collecting data is where the person has consented to the collection of personal information.  This consent can be express (such as verbally or in writing), or it can be implied.

    The BC Personal Information Protection Act states that a person is deemed (that is, implied) to have consented to the collection and use of their personal information if the purpose of collecting the information would be obvious to a reasonable person, and the person voluntarily provides the information for the purpose.  In other words, if it is not reasonably obvious what the data would be used for, and you did not give up the information for that purpose, the other party cannot collect and use the data.

    On the other hand, a business can only collect and use personal information if (and there are four to parts to this test):

    1. The business provides the person with notice of its purpose in collecting the information,
    2. The person has an opportunity to decline to allow the collection,
    3. The person does not decline to allow the collection and use of the information, and;
    4. The collection and use is reasonable given the sensitivity of the personal information.

    Importantly, the notice of the collection and use of the data must be clear and understandable (in other words, it cannot be legal mumbo-jumbo), and must be given far enough in advance of the information being collected that the person can refuse if they want.  Also, if the business collecting the information uses it for a purpose that is different from what they told the person, or they simply didn’t tell the person what the purpose was, its collection is illegal.

    Read the Fine Print that comes with Internet Connected Devices

    While it would be premature to comment on how this law might play out in the case of a spying vibrator, consumers of internet connected devices should read the fine print that comes with the devices, and ensure they are not buying more than they bargain for.  We hope you enjoyed this peek between the sheets of BC’s privacy laws and have learned something by reading 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.  League and Williams is a Victoria, BC based law firm with expertise in injury law, estate disputes and marine law and may be reached via email at info@leaguelaw.com or phone at 250-888-0002.

  • 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.

  • Are Waivers (for Accidents) Enforceable in BC? (Video Blog)

    Are Waivers (for Accidents) Enforceable in BC? (Video Blog)

    This week, I am going to talk about the enforceability of waivers, which are incredibly common and powerful clauses in contracts we all come across almost every day.  From getting on a chairlift or a ferris-wheel, to renting a car, a bicycle or piece of garden equipment, or even leaving a jacket at a coat check, waivers are everywhere.  Giving up, or waiving, the right to claim for the consequences of someone else’s carelessness is something we all frequently do.

    Waivers are Agreements not to Sue

    A waiver is a promise not to sue for any injury, death or property damage arising out of the activity, including loss caused by the clear negligence of another person.  British Columbia is the most waiver-friendly province in Canada, and Canada likely the most favourable country in the world for enforcing waivers.

    Insurance companies like waivers because they reduce the number of claims they have to pay out because waivers reduce the likelihood their insured will be successfully sued.  Businesses like waivers because they reduce the cost of their insurance and when a business cannot get liability insurance, a well-drafted and presented waiver offers the opportunity to avoid legal responsibility for the negligence of the business and its employees.

    For many people, the idea that they might be badly injured by the obvious negligence of an another person and have no legal recourse to pay for wage loss or medical expenses, can be frightening. And it should be.

    Waivers are Enforceable When They Meet Legal Tests

    While many waivers are enforceable, they must meet several legal tests.  In order for a waiver to be effective in removing someone’s right to sue for another’s negligence, the waiver must meet the following three part test:

    •  First, the waiver must actually apply to the facts of how the accident occurred;
    • Second, the waiver must not be what’s called unconscionable; and
    • Third, the waiver must not be against public policy.

    Waivers Must Apply to the Facts of the Accident

    So, regarding the first part of the test, does the waiver apply to the facts, this means the court must consider whether the terms of the waiver include a description of the risks that caused the person’s injury.  This means a waiver can only cover potential risks which were in the mind of the person at the time they signed the release.  For example, if you are skiing, it is likely in your mind you might ski off a poorly marked trail and injure yourself, or be injured in an avalanche which could have been prevented.

    You would not, however, contemplate being shot by an employee who was carelessly handling a firearm, or being food poisoned by poor practices in the ski lodge.  In other words, the cause of the injury that the waivers seek to avoid legal responsibility for, must be reasonably described in the waiver and be generally foreseeable by the parties.  Clear language is required if a business operator wishes to release themselves from liability for the negligence of their employees or agents.  The courts must also consider whether the participant actually understood what they signed.

    Generally, by signing a waiver, it is presumed that the participant has read and understood it.  The activity operator is under no special obligation to ensure that participants understand what they have signed.  However, where the operator knew or should have known that a participant was unaware of the legal or practical effects of signing the waiver, they have to take reasonable steps to advise the participant.

    This can arise where the participant was told to sign the waiver in a hurried or casual manner and not given adequate time to read and understand the waiver.

    Waivers Must not be Unconscionable

    The second main requirement of a valid waiver is that it must not be unconscionable.  In other words, even if the waiver applies to the facts of an accident, the court may find the waiver unenforceable because it is unconscionable.  To prove that a waiver is unconscionable, the person who signed the waiver and the person relying on the waiver must have been in significantly unequal bargaining positions.  The business operator must also have abused this power to get the participant to agree to an unfair waiver.

    That said, participants almost always have the choice between agreeing to the waiver and participating, or not participating at all.  Courts have upheld waivers even in cases where the participant has traveled long distances to participate in an activity, only to find that if they didn’t accept the waiver they would be turned away.  The courts do not generally view inconvenience suffered by a person because they cannot partake in an activity unless they sign a waiver as an inequality in bargaining power that makes signing the waiver unconscionable.

    Waivers Must not be Against Public Policy

    The third main requirement of a valid waiver is that the waiver must not be against public policy – that is, the waiver is contrary to the interests of the general public as a whole.  The power to overturn a waiver because of public policy is rarely exercised by the courts in BC.  Waivers in adventure tourism activities, for example, generally do not give rise to public policy concerns because, by definition, these activities have inherent risk and people generally expect some risk.

    Many activities, however, with reasonable care of the business, should be low risk, and a court might find it is against public policy to enforce a waiver where to do so would discourage routine safety practices.

    When in Doubt, Seek Legal Advice Out

    A properly drafted and presented waiver can provide business owners with strong legal protection from claims.  However, it should never be assumed that a liability waiver will provide complete protection from law suits.  In cases where there has been significant injury or property damage, or death, a judge should be asked to decide whether the waiver is enforceable.

    We hope you have learned something from this week’s 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.  League and Williams is a Victoria, BC based law firm with expertise in injury law, estate disputes and marine law and may be reached via email at info@leaguelaw.com or phone at 250-888-0002.  If you are injured and would like a free consult, give us a call for a free consult.  We are here to help injured parties get the fair compensation that they are entitled to.

  • Liability for Unsafe Premises – BC’s Occupiers Liability Act (Video Blog)

    Liability for Unsafe Premises – BC’s Occupiers Liability Act (Video Blog)

    Unsafe Premises, an Overview of Occupiers Liability Law in British Columbia

    In British Columbia, the law provides that a person who is in physical possession or control over premises has duty of care to see that another person, and that person’s property, is reasonably safe in using the premises (basically, a law against unsafe premises).  This area of law is referred to as “occupiers liability law” because under BC legislation, a person who is in physical possession or control property is called an “occupier”.

    This law often comes into play when someone suffers a fall in a grocery store or a restaurant, slips in an icy parking lot, trips on an uneven sidewalk, or falls down uneven stairs.  Notice, however, that I also said the law applies to people’s property as well.  That is, a person’s property, such as a vehicle, must also be reasonably safe in using another’s premises.

    While we do not like to think of domestic pets or farm animals, such as dogs or horses as “property”, as they can often be part of the family, the law considers them to be property and also provides that these creatures should also be reasonably safe in using another’s premises.  However, the majority of cases in this area of law relate to injuries to people.

    The Law Does not Require Perfection but Merely Reasonable Actions to Ensure Safety

    Some people believe that if they injure themselves when they are on another person’s property, through no fault of their own, that the owner of the property is automatically responsible for having unsafe premises.  This is incorrect.  The law only requires a person to take reasonable steps to see that another person or their property is reasonably safe in using the premises.  In other words, the law does not require perfection in ensuring premises are absolutely safe.  The most common example of injuries on premises are slip and falls on residential or commercial property due to slippery substances such as water, ice, or food.  In these cases, the law requires the person controlling the premises to exercise a reasonable standard of inspection and maintenance for hazards.  This does not mean that the occupier will be liable for any accident, only an accident where reasonable inspection and maintenance could have avoided the accident – where negligence on the part of the property owner has resulted in unsafe premises.

    For example, the courts have found that grocery stores in British Columbia should do regular inspections of their floors about every 30 minutes to two hours depending on the type of store, the area of the store, and how busy it is.  As long as the store has a system to ensure this inspection is occurring, and can show that it actually occurred, the store may not be held liable for an injury even if somebody innocently slips on something such as grapes in the produce aisle.

    As an example, imagine that you walked into a grocery store and ten minutes before you come along another customer spilled grapes on the floor without noticing.  This could totally happen, right?  Then you slip on the grapes before the store employees had a chance to notice them and remove the hazard.  You fall hard onto the concrete floor, perhaps breaking a bone.  It is possible the store would not be liable for your injuries, provided they could show the system they had in place was reasonable and it was being followed, even though the grapes were on the floor for several minutes before you stepped on them.

    Again, the law does not require perfection, or for the occupier to be responsible for any serious injury; rather, it only requires they exercise care that is reasonable in all of the circumstances.

    Failure to Have and to Follow Systems of Inspection & Maintenance will Result in Liability for Unsafe Premises

    That said, I continue to be surprised how large and sophisticated companies, such as large grocery store chains, either fail to have effective systems of inspection and maintenance in place to safeguard the safety of their customer, or simply don’t follow the system they do put in place.

    I hope you have learned something from this week’s 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.  League and Williams is a Victoria, BC based law firm with expertise in injury law, estate disputes and marine law and may be reached via email at info@leaguelaw.com or phone at 250-888-0002.  If you are injured and would like a free consult, give us a call for a free consult.  We are here to help injured parties get the fair compensation that they are entitled to.

  • Unfair Wills: Who can challenge in BC? (Video Blog)

    Unfair Wills: Who can challenge in BC? (Video Blog)

    BC Laws are the Most Sympathetic to the Wrongly Disinherited 

    Many people do not know that BC’s laws are the most sympathetic laws in all of Canada to people who have been unfairly treated in a family member’s will.  Many provinces allow a testator to exercise almost complete discretion over how their estate is divided, even if it leaves their loved ones penniless.  BC’s highest court has said that a person’s will is their last opportunity to do right by their family members, and BC courts regularly vary unfair wills.

    BC’s Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA), provides that if a will-maker dies leaving a will that does not make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the will-maker’s spouse or children, then the court may change the will to make provision for the spouse or children that it thinks adequate and fair in the circumstances.  This can mean the significant rewriting of a will that is not possible in other provinces.

    Who Can Challenge a Will in BC?

    The obvious issue is, if a spouse or a child can apply to vary a will, who is a spouse and who is a child?  Under BC’s law, a spouse is one of two people who are either married to one another, or have lived in a marriage like relationship for at least two years. Of course, this includes same sex couples.  However, people cease being spouses when they separate.  This means separated spouses cannot challenge their former partner’s will.  Separation occurs when one spouse communicates they intend to separate permanently, or they taken action that demonstrates they intend to separate permanently.  This means that people may be legally separated even if they continue to live under the same roof.  Importantly, spouses are not considered to have separated if, within one year of their separation they begin to live together again, the primary purpose for doing so is to reconcile, and they continue to live together for one or more periods, totaling at least 90 days.

    On the other hand, a child, including an adult, and even a financially independent adult, can challenge their parent’s will, as well.  A child means a natural birth child, or a step-child that has been adopted by the step-parent.  Step-children who have not been adopted cannot challenge a will.

    Time is Limited to Challenge an Unfair Will

    One last important point to note is that if a spouse or child has not filed court documents to challenge the will within 180 days from date the court issues the grant of probate, the right to challenge the will is typically lost.  The grant of probate is the formal certificate given by a court that certifies that a will has been proven, validated and registered and which, from that point on, gives the executor the legal authority to execute the will.  Again, a will challenge must be filed within 180 of the court granting probate of an unfair will.

    We hope you have learned something from this week’s 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.  League and Williams is a Victoria, BC based law firm with expertise in injury law, estate disputes and marine law and may be reached via email at info@leaguelaw.com or phone at 250-888-0002.  If you are injured and would like a free consult, give us a call for a free consult.  We are here to help injured parties get the fair compensation that they are entitled to.

  • In a car accident while at work? WorkSafeBC or ICBC? (Video Blog)

    In a car accident while at work? WorkSafeBC or ICBC? (Video Blog)

    Injured in a Car Accident While Working – ICBC or WorkSafeBC?

    If you’ve been injured in a motor vehicle accident while working, you are likely confused about what your options are, and whether you should be making a claim through ICBC or through WorkSafeBC (WCB).

    The starting point is this: if you are injured in a single vehicle accident while you were working (for example, your car has run off the road and struck a tree), or you are injured by another motorist who was also operating their vehicle as part of their work at the time of the accident, then you must claim through WCB. You cannot make a claim through ICBC.

    On the other hand, if you are injured in a motor vehicle accident while working, and the person who caused your injuries was not working at the time, then you can claim through either WCB or ICBC. That is, you have the option, or what lawyers call an election.

    So, the obvious question is, why would I choose an ICBC claim or a WCB claim, or vice versa?

    The benefit to making a claim through WCB is that WCB is intended to pay all of your rehabilitation expenses, and 90% of the wage loss you experience immediately after your accident.

    Notice I said intended. Many people become frustrated with the WCB process and they often do not receive the medical treatment they need because WCB terminates benefits, maintaining the condition pre-existed the accident, or the injuries have become permanent and therefore do not qualify as an ongoing claim.

    Seemingly endless reviews and appeals are not uncommon in WCB claims, and injured workers often simply give up on the process out of frustration.

    On the other hand, the benefits to making an ICBC claim as a worker who is not at fault for their injures, is that the worker will receive all of their medical expenses, and 100% of their wage loss, as well as additional monies for pain and suffering that WCB does not pay.

    These additional monies for pain and suffering can be thousands of dollars per month for each month the injury persists.

    However, this compensation must wait until your ICBC claim is fully resolved through either settlement or a court judgment.

    In other words, if you elect to go through ICBC when you could have made a WCB claim, ICBC does not have to pay you any wage loss or medical expenses until your claim is fully settled or heard by the court.

    On that note, it is important to appreciate two things, 98% of cases settle without going to court, and; some law firms, such as ours, pay for the medical expenses that ICBC does not until your claim is resolved.

    So, when it comes to electing between WCB or ICBC, what does all this mean?

    It means that the total compensation you will receive from making an ICBC claim will typically be far greater than making a WCB claim, but you will have to wait longer for that compensation.  That said, when recovering from any injury, being patient is always the best strategy.

    We hope you have learned something from this week’s blog.  Please feel free to like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, or subscribe to our YouTube channel to receive notice of our future weekly video blogs on the law.  League and Williams is a Victoria, BC based law firm with expertise in injury law, estate disputes and marine law and may be reached via email at info@leaguelaw.com or phone at 250-888-0002.  If you are injured and would like a free consult, give us a call for a free consult.  We are here to help injured parties get the fair compensation that they are entitled to.

  • After Injury Claim Settlement: How Long does it take to Get the Funds?

    After Injury Claim Settlement: How Long does it take to Get the Funds?

    After an Injury Claim Settlement, Then What?

    After an injury claim settlement, there are several steps that take place before the claimant can receive their money.  In every case, the claimant must sign a release, that releases the other party from any future claims for the same accident.  The claimant’s lawyer may also need to sign documents to dismiss the court action if one has been started on the claimant’s behalf.

    These documents then have to be returned to the defendant.  After the documents have been returned to the defendant, settlement funds are released to the claimant’s lawyer’s trust account.  In some cases, the defendant provides the funds to the claimant’s lawyer, to be held in trust, at the time the defendant provides the release that is to be signed, however, the claimant’s lawyer is not allowed to release the funds to the claimant until the release and any other required documentation has been completed and returned to the defendants.

    If the insurance company is ICBC, this process can occur quite quickly and typically takes no longer than a couple of weeks.  If the insurance company is not ICBC, it can take longer, especially with insurers who are based outside of Canada.  Your lawyer is likely familiar with the various insurance companies and will request that the funds be provided within a certain period of time, 30 days is usually more than sufficient.

    Once the claimant’s counsel has received the funds and are authorized to release them, they will account for any disbursements and fees that are to be paid from the funds and the amount the claimant is entitled to can be distributed to the claimant from the lawyer’s trust account within a few days.  A claimant will be provided with a statement that details the amount of the settlement and any appropriate deductions from the settlement including amounts for lawyers’ fees and disbursements.

    If you have a question about what comes after an injury claim settlement or another legal issue, contact us – either give us a call at 250-888-0002 or email us at info@leaguelaw.com.