MacLean Law’s Vancouver rear end car accident lawyers know that most drivers hit from behind in a Vancouver rear-end car accident suffer at a minimum whiplash type injuries and often much worse. Our Vancouver Rear End Car Accident Lawyers also know that the Vancouver driver hitting them from behind will often be held liable. But sometimes the person who is rear-ended can be liable and the person hitting them from behind can be the victim who obtains a large Vancouver injury settlement. Vancouver rear end collision lawyers handle liability disputes as well as maximizing settlements for our injured clients.
Call our Vancouver Rear End Car Accident Lawyers immediately when it is safe to do so at 1-877-602-9900 so we can help develop a successful strategy to obtain justice for you. Spencer MacLean at our Vancouver office will meet with you at any of our 5 offices, your home or even the hospital.
Vancouver Rear End Car Accident Lawyers
MacLean Personal Injury’s Vancouver Rear End Car Accident Lawyers deal with cases where liability can be disputed and our Vancouver personal injury lawyers know ICBC’s first position on liability isn’t always right.
When you are involved in a “rear-ender” ICBC car accident it pays to hire one of our tenacious and skilled Vancouver Rear End Car Accident Lawyers.
The recent case of Bingul v. Youngson decided liability against the person who was rear ended by a large commercial truck finding his actions in changing lanes in front of the commercial truck negligent. MacLean Personal Injury’s Vancouver Rear End Car Accident Lawyers appreciated the summary of the law on liability by The Supreme Court Judge:
 The parties provided the Court with five authorities I consider relevant to the issue of liability in this case – Cue v. Breitkreuz, 2010 BCSC 617; Singleton v. Morris, 2010 BCCA 48; Stanikzai v. Bola, 2012 BCSC 846; Rai v. Fowler, 2007 BCSC 1678; and Ayers v. Singh,  B.C.J. No. 350 (C.A.).
 In Stanikzai v. Bola, Justice N. Smith noted, at para. 7, that:
…when one vehicle hits another from behind, the onus is on the driver of the rear vehicle to show that the collision was not caused by his or her fault: Barrie v. Marshall, 2010 BCSC 981….
He also noted, however, in para. 8:
But while liability for a rear end collision usually rests entirely with the following driver, that is not an invariable result… In that case, like the case at bar, the plaintiff and defendant gave conflicting versions of the accident circumstances that could not be reconciled. In that case, the plaintiff was the following driver who maintained that the defendant had suddenly moved into his lane of travel. There was an independent witness whose testimony supported some aspects of the plaintiff’s testimony. Justice Smith preferred the testimony of the independent witness and the plaintiff and found the defendant to be 75% liable for causing the accident.
 In another decision of Justice N. Smith – Cue v. Breitkreuz – the defendant struck the plaintiff’s vehicle from the rear, but the plaintiff’s action was dismissed. Justice Smith concluded that the plaintiff had caused the accident by negligently making an abrupt lane change and stop; creating a situation in which the defendant did not have a safe stopping distance behind the plaintiff’s vehicle. There are provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318 relevant to the issue of liability in this case. Section 144(1) of that Act provides:
A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway
(a) without due care and attention
(b) without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, or
(c) at a speed that is excessive relative to the road, traffic, visibility or weather conditions. Section 162(1) provides:
A driver of a vehicle must not cause or permit the vehicle to follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the amount and nature of traffic on and the condition of the highway. And section 151(a) provides:
A driver who is driving a vehicle on a laned roadway
(a) must not drive from one lane to another when a broken line only exists between the lanes, unless the driver has ascertained that movement can be made with safety and will in no way affect the travel of another vehicle.
 Mr. Bingul was aware that there was a large and heavy vehicle in the lane. I conclude that it was solely Mr. Bingul’s sudden and negligent move into the lane of travel of Mr. Youngson’s large and heavy vehicle that created the risk of collision and resulted in the accident.
In the end result the ICBC car accident rear ended driver had his claim dismissed.