Our Blog

It is important to understand the difference between a traffic circle and a roundabout, and the rules that apply to each.  Many parts of the B.C. do not have traffic circles or roundabouts, but they are becoming more common in the Lower Mainland. 

1. Slow down as you approach the intersection.
2. Yield to any traffic in the traffic circle. If another vehicle arrives at the same time as you do, yield to the vehicle on your right.
3. Go around the traffic circle to the right (in a counterclockwise direction).

1. When approaching, reduce your speed, watch for signs that may help you find your exit, watch for people using the crosswalk and be ready to stop.
2. Before entering, yield to traffic already in the roundabout that comes from your immediate left.
3. Enter the roundabout to your right (a counter clockwise direction) when there is a gap in traffic and you feel it is safe to do so. Continue until you reach your exit.
4. Never come to a full stop in the roundabout unless traffic conditions require it.
5. To exit, use your right turn signal to let other road users know where you plan to exit. Watch for people using the crosswalk, exit at a slow speed and be ready to stop.
6. Remember, if you miss your exit, you can always keep going around the roundabout until you reach it again!"

Bicycling is on the rise in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland. Currently, bicyclists in BC do not need to be licensed or have insurance.

If you, as a bicyclist, are injured in an accident, unless you collide with or are struck by a "vehicle" which is defined as "a motor vehicle or trailer," you do not receive any Accident Benefits (Wage replacement or medical care costs) through ICBC.

An injury suffered due to a collision between two bicyclists falls outside of ICBC insurance. The same holds true for a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian. There may be recourse to home owner's insurance, but not everyone owns a home or has this type of insurance, and there are often exclusions in those policies. You would have to try to recover damages against the bicyclist by suing them personally, and then collecting on any judgment. This is often impossible or so costly as to be ineffective.

If you are a car driver or passenger injured by the actions of a bicyclist (eg. a bicyclist causes you or the driver to swerve to avoid a collision and the vehicle goes in the ditch or hits something), you may be entitled to Accident Benefits through ICBC, but ICBC is not responsible for any damages you are awarded for your personal injury claim. So, unless the cyclist has assets or homeowner's insurance that would provide coverage, the injured person may be left holding the bag with life changing injuries.

Certainly on an individual level, requiring mandatory insurance for bicyclists makes sense. What about the bigger picture? Undoubtedly, it would add a layer of bureaucracy and cost to what should be the simple act of riding a bike for pleasure, exercise or commuting. What about young kids riding their bikes? Should they have to have insurance as well? As a society, we have decided that this additional cost for everyone makes up for the potential irreparable harm that can be cause on an injured individual when it comes to cars. Should bicycling be different?

The law in BC is that you must follow all reasonable medical advice in trying to recover from your personal injuries.   If you do not, then the defendant and ICBC will argue that “She would have been better a long time ago if she had gone for treatment.”   You run the  risk  that a Court will find you did not “mitigate” and the Court will reduce your damages.

• The cost was more than she could manage;
• Treatment took time away from her children;
• The physiotherapy was less helpful than massage from her husband;
• She could do the stretches she was taught by the physiotherapist at home.

The decision does not state if only one of these factors alone would have made it reasonable to stop the therapy.  Therefore, it is always best to consult with your treating doctors to discuss all issues  about treatment and get their advise whether to continue or stop.

Rozendal v Landingin, 2013 BCSC 24
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2013/2013bcsc24/2013bcsc24.html

CBC reported today on a video of a "road rage" incident in North Vancouver that was posted on YouTube.  Their article contained some tips on how to deal with a road rage incident and ways to avoid getting in a situation in the first place. One of those tips was to "Stay in your Vehicle."  Being inside the vehicle has the obvious advantage of having the vehicle windows and structure offer you protection from assault and injury, but there are also a less obvious advantage to this from a personal injury law perspective.

First off, injuries arising from a road rage assault that occurs outside of the vehicles will likely not be covered by insurance.  Where the dominant cause of an injury to a person is the use of any weapon or object, other than a vehicle used as a weapon, section 90 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act says that the insurance company (usually ICBC) does not have to pay any insurance money to the person suffering the bodily injury.  That leaves you to sue the person that assaulted you, so if there is no insurance coverage and it turns out the person has no assets, you may have what is called a "dry judgment", which is an analogy to putting a bucket down a well to get water, but the well is "dry".  There is at least one reported case where an important issue was whether a person was struck by a vehicle or by the fist of someone in the vehicle, which leads one to believe that a fist would be construed to be a weapon or an object for the purposes of s.90.

Similarily, Part 7 accident benefits will probably not be available to a person injured in a road rage situation that occurs outside the vehicle.  In order to be eligible for Part 7 benefits, the injury must be caused by an accident that arises out of the "use or operation of a vehicle" according to section 79(1) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulations.  Similar no-fault benefits were extended to a person that was the victim of a car-jacking attempt, on the basis that it was the "use and operation" of the person's own vehicle that put the person in harm's way.

Every case will turn on its specific facts, and all of the tips given in the CBC article are valid.  One of the most important ones is stay in your vehicle and lock the doors.  If the assaulting person goes so far as to use their vehicle as a weapon, you will be in a better position to prevent or lessen injury than if you are outside.  You may also be in a better position to recover compensation and benefits for any resulting injuries.

The BC Supreme Court recently held that interest charges on disbursements (expenses a law firm has in advancing an ICBC Claim) is recoverable against the Defendant, or ICBC.  If interest is necessary or properly incurred in the docut of the proceeding, a reasonable amount is recoverable whether the interest charges are paid to a financier, service provider, or lawyer in the personal injury action.  The Court ordered that the Defendant and ICBC had to pay interest on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans and expert reports.

Chandi v. Atwell, 2013 BCSC 830
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/13/08/2013BCSC0830cor1.htm

With the floods happening in Calgary and Southern Alberta, our hearts go out to all those affected and displaced.  Best wishes to all those affected and the City of Calgary employees that are working hard to keep the water filtration systems up and running.

As lawyers, we found the report from the Calgary Herald that the predatory cats at the Calgary Zoo may be moved to the holding cells at the Calgary Court Center quite amusing.

Governments, crown corporations and large private corporations are working by themselves, for themselves, and in concert (and self interest) to process data in ways that meet their needs; all at the expense of our privacy.  They may pay lip service to privacy but once the toothpaste is out of the tube there is no going back.

In a report titled “Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains: The Growth of an American Surveillance Society,” the American Civil Liberties Union gave an example of privacy in this traditional sense: “A woman who leaves her house, drives to a store, meets a friend for coffee, visits a museum, and then returns home may be in public all day, but her life is still private in that she is the only one who has an overall view of how she spent her day. In America, she does not expect that her activities are being watched or tracked in any systematic way -- she expects to be left alone.”



When interests are not aligned and your adversary has access to your private information (which they do and are working hard to process efficiently) you are putting yourself in harms way and at risk to abuse of authority.