Liability
Plaintiff's Claim Struck for Failure to Prove Liability of Unidentified Driver
On November 9, 2011, the Honourable Mr. Justice Williams of the British Columbia Supreme Court delivered his judgment in Paguio v. Fraser, 2011 BCSC 1519.
Cyclist Riding Through Crosswalk 15% at Fault for Accident
In DOBRE V. LANGLEY, 2011 BCSC 1315 (“DOBRE”), a decision released October 4, 2011, the Court considered how to apportion liability in a personal injury case where the Plaintiff was struck by the Defendant while riding his bike in a cross-walk. The DOBRE decision provides an example of how compliance with the “rules of the road” can directly affect who is liable for a particular accident, and to what extent.
Police Officer Not Contributorily Negligent For Riding Motorcycle in Median
In the case of X v. Y, 2011 BCSC 944 (“X. v. Y.”), the Court determined the appropriate apportionment of liability for a serious collision that arose out of unique factual circumstances. The Plaintiff, Mr. X., was an R.C.M.P. officer who was responding to an urgent emergency situation after the collapse of an overpass on the Lougheed Highway in Coquitlam. The Plaintiff was riding a police motorcycle with lights and sirens activated when he was struck by the Defendant, Mr.
Left Turning Vehicle Not Liable for Accident
In THOMSON V. HUNT, 2010 BCSC 1858 (“THOMSON”), released December 24, 2010, the Court had to consider liability stemming from a collision in which the Defendant was found to have been speeding down a hill with limited visibility when he struck the Plaintiff, who was attempting to turn left up the hill.
U-Turning Defendant 100% Liable for Accident
Be careful when you make a u-turn. That is the message of the recent personal injury case Hough v. Wyatt, 2010 BCSC 1375 which was a trial held on liability only.
Severing Liability and Quantum Trials
In the case CAYOU V. CAYOU, 2010 BCSC 1224 (“CAYOU”), released August 30, 2010, the Plaintiff argued that it was appropriate to sever the trials of liability and quantum of damages due to the economic benefit that such a severance would create for her.
COURT DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN “ALERTED” AND “UNALERTED” RESPONSE TIME
In the case Walter v. Plummer, 2010 BCSC 1017 (“Walter”), released on July 20, 2010, the Court examined the role of scientific evidence relating to driver reaction time in the context of liability apportionment. The case of Walter dealt with an accident in which the Plaintiff was struck by the Defendant’s motorcycle as he jaywalked across a street near a secondary school.
