After being injured in a hit and run car accident a claimant has an obligation to make best efforts to find the other driver in order to pursue a personal injury claim with ICBC. In this case ICBC suggested that had signs been posted leading up to the collision site commuters who travelled the route and witnessed the collision would likely have seen the signs and could have come forward with information.
However, the judge found that it is not always practical to put up a sign looking for witnesses after a car accident in the Lower Mainland.
 In my view, once the circumstances of this case are considered in their entirety, they weigh in favour of a finding that “all reasonable efforts” were made by the plaintiff within the meaning of s. 24(5) of the Act. Accordingly, I am satisfied that Mr. Rieveley has met his onus under this provision and ICBC is properly named as a nominal defendant.( click here to review hit and run case of Rieveley v. Doe, 2017 BCSC 202)
The claimant reported the collision to ICBC on the same day it occurred. Three days later, he provided a full written statement to ICBC, including reference to the unidentified vehicles that were involved. The claimant did not put any signs up in the area of the accident looking for witnesses,
The main basis for ICBC’s opposition to the hit and run claim was its view that the claimant should have posted signs on Nordel Way seeking witnesses to the collision.
The judge found that “all reasonable efforts” were made by the claimant within the meaning of s. 24(5) of the Act. In making this conclusion the judge went on to state at paragraph 41:
If the event itself did not capture the attention of the commuting traffic sufficient to warrant someone stopping to assist, it is difficult to understand how a sign that is posted along the same route would do so.
Watch our short video to learn how to make an ICBC hit and run claim:
Posted by Personal Injury Lawyer Mr. Renn A. Holness, B.A. LL.B.– only representing the injured.