BLOG

Recent Posts

Langley ICBC Car Injury Lawyers

Our Langley and Surrey ICBC car injury lawyers warn that Mall parking lot  ICBC car accident injuries are common and can be very serious.

In the recent case of  Russell, the BC Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by an injured pedestrian struck by a car in a mall parking lot. The Court varied the Trial Judge’s finding that the pedestrian was 2/3 responsible for his injuries and found that the mall parking lot driver was ¾ responsible and the pedestrian only ¼ liable.

The case points out that both Langley drivers and pedestrians must be alert to avoid injury.  The case also addresses the test for allowing significant future care damages awards that often form a key part of proper compensation to an injured victim in ICBC car accident injury cases.

If you suffer a Langley ICBC car injury, you need to get get prompt medical attention. Then you need to call our Langley and Surrey personal injury office at 604-576-5400 for a free appointment. We will ensure we maximize the award you need to cover both your pain and suffering and your economic loss. Our Langley ICBC car injury lawyers are ready to work with you to help you get the highest settlement possible to ensure you are made whole.

How Does The Court Assess Fault When Someone Gets Hurt in A Mall Lot?

In Russell the Court of Appeal found the driver to be more at fault than the pedestrian on a 75/25 basis and stated:

Each assessment will turn on the facts of the case. In this instance, Mr. Russell was looking down as he stepped over the barrier, and continued to look down as he took a few steps into the parking stall. Mr. Parks was aware that there were pedestrians in the area, entered the lot from a direction that required him to swing wide to enter a parking stall, changed his mind at the last minute in terms of which stall he would take, shoulder checked numerous times, and ended up driving forward when he was looking backward, striking Mr. Russell. Clearly both were at fault. However, finding that Mr. Russell was two-thirds responsible for the accident, in my respectful view, is grossly disproportionate to his fault. The trial judge was clearly influenced by the finding that Mr. Russell had breached his statutory duty under s. 179(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act by leaving a “place of safety”. As I have explained above, this finding was in error. Although Mr. Russell was looking down as he walked, he did not step off a curb or shoulder into moving traffic (which is what s. 179(2) is designed to prevent) and his fault should not be assessed as if he did.

[20]         In Loewen v. Bernardi, this court reduced a finding of liability against the pedestrian plaintiff from 25% to 10% on the basis that the plaintiff’s contribution was minor. In that case, the plaintiff was half-way through a marked crosswalk when he was struck by a vehicle. I would not characterize Mr. Russell’s degree of fault as “minor”. On the other hand, it was not the main cause of the accident. The main cause was the fact that Mr. Parks drove forward while he was looking backward. I would allow the appeal on this ground and apportion liability on the basis of 75% against Mr. Parks and 25% against Mr. Russell.

How Does The Court Award Money to Cover My Cost of Future Care?

It’s critical you hire an experienced lawyer immediately after a car accident to ensure you obtain the highest award for the cost of you or your loved one’s future care. Doctors, as well as other health care professionals, can give evidence to support a fair award for the cost of future care for an injured ICBC car accident victim. In Russell the Court held:

[21]         This court has recently addressed the question of the proper test to be applied to this head of damage, as well as what evidentiary foundation is required to establish the award. In Gregory v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2011 BCCA 144, Garson J.A. said:

[38]      Courts do accept testimony from a variety of health care professionals as to necessary and reasonable costs of future care: Jacobson v. Nike Canada Ltd. (1996), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 63, 133 D.L.R. (4th) 377 (S.C.) at para. 182; in which Levine J. (as she then was) said:

[182]          The test she enunciated does not, in my view, require that the evidence of the specific care that is required by the plaintiff be provided by a medical doctor. In Milina v. Bartsch, McLachlin J. accepted the evidence of a rehabilitation expert as to the type of care that should be provided.

See also: Aberdeen v. Zanatta, 2008 BCCA 420 at paras. 43-53, 63; Rizzolo v. Brett, 2010 BCCA 398 at paras. 72-83.

[39]      I do not consider it necessary, in order for a plaintiff to successfully advance a future cost of care claim, that a physician testify to the medical necessity of each and every item of care that is claimed. But there must be some evidentiary link drawn between the physician’s assessment of pain, disability, and recommended treatment and the care recommended by a qualified health care professional: Aberdeen at paras. 43, 63.

When you are injured time is of the essence. Call us now at 604-576-5400 to meet with her for free to ensure you get proper medical care and aggressive legal representation.



alterFantastic Law Firm! Right from the very start, I knew I had called the right people.alter