I've got a green light, I can just go, right? Wrong!

Green does NOT mean that you have the right of way over all other vehicles.  Before you enter an intersection, even on a green light, you have obligations as a driver.

Section 127 of the Motor Vehicle Act requires drivers facing a green light to let vehicles or pedestrians lawfully in an intersection to clear.  That is, vehicles lawfully in the intersection have the right-of-way over vehicles with the green light.  It states:

127  (1) When a green light alone is exhibited at an intersection by a traffic control signal,

(a) the driver of a vehicle facing the green light

(i)  may cause the vehicle to proceed straight through the intersection, or to turn left or right, subject to a sign or signal prohibiting a left or right turn, or both, or designating the turning movement permitted,

(ii)  must yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully in the intersection or in an adjacent crosswalk at the time the green light is exhibited, and

(iii)  must yield the right of way to vehicles lawfully in the intersection at the time the green light became exhibited, and

As a personal injury lawyer in Vancouver, I have seen too many accidents where a driver of a vehicle approaching a series of vehicles stopped at a red light.  The driver moves into the curb lane as he approaches the light it turns green.  The driver then accelerates to pass the vehicles stopped in the intersection.

The problem is that when one is passing on the right there are some blind spots where an unwitting driver will not notice a danger ahead.  The danger usually takes the form of a pedestrian, bicyclist, or slow driver trying to clear the intersection when the light turned red on them. [In "Jaywalker hit, driver blamed", I discussed the importance of s.158 of the Motor Vehicle Act (Passing on the Right).] http://personal-injury-lawyer-vancouver.blogspot.com/2011/08/jaywalker-hit-driver-blamed.html

The driver making no attempt to determine if it is safe to pass on the right, blindly speeds into the intersection failing to yield the right of way as required by s. 127 completely unaware of the various driving provision that have been violated and the danger that is about to be caused by his negligence.

PT Health Medical and Wellness

A last summer, I did a trial for a client where she received an outstanding judgment.  While preparing her case for trial, I met Jill Renowitzky my client's physiotherapist.  I was fully impressed with her ability to explain what was wrong with my client.  I learned that Jill had a special interest in preparing meaningful clinical records and she works with all of the physiotherapist on her team to develop a good system to record the treatments.

My client was impressed with Jill's skills as a physio and it was clear that Jill went above and beyond to get my client the resources she needed to help her recover.

For these reasons, I have absolutely no hesitation in recommending Jill Renowitzky or her team to anyone looking for a good physiotherapist.

For our clients at McComb Witten the PT Medical and Health clinic has an added benefit as it is located about 3 blocks from our office just across Broadway at Commercial.

To find out more about PT Medical and Wellness, just click on the logo on the side of my blog under Preferred Service Providers.

Just so it is clear, I am NOT receiving a financial benefit from anyone at PT Health or any of my preferred service providers.  I just want to highlight professionals who I have met and respect.

Gift From the Heart Foundation Golf Tournament

I had the opportunity to meet a number of wonderful people from the Filipino/Canadian community at a charity golf tournament that McComb Witten was proud to be a title sponsor.  It is wonderful to hear about the great work being done by this charity to provide resources to underprivileged children in the Phillipines to help them with their education.

Congratulations to all of those that participated and helped a good cause.

ICBC claim goes sideways

The following post contains enough important information that I am reposting it here on this blog.  It was originally posted in June 2011 at Vancouver Personal Injury Lawyer:

As I was getting my news (Canucks) hit from the Vancouver Sun, I saw a link to an article titled:

B.C. woman rear-ended in accident may lose driver's licence

www.vancouversun.com/technology/woman+rear+ended+accident+lose+driver+licence/4832794/story.html

The story is essentially about a woman who was injured in an accident that wasn't her fault, but she still owes money to ICBC to the tune of about $42,000.

The issue this woman faces is that, according to the judge, she seemed to have sued the wrong person.  The person that ran into her said she slipped on an oily substance on the road.  The owner of the vehicle leaking the oily substance was not discussed by the judge, but it seems that she did not sue the "John Doe" or ICBC.  I don't know when she hired her lawyer, but the person that was negligent was not known to her and the hit and run provisions would have applied to her.

If you have a hit and run situation, you have very, very strict obligations - failing which your claim could be dismissed and you would owe money just like this poor lady.  It highlights the importance of hiring a lawyer for your ICBC claim.

If you have questions call me at McComb Witten at 604-255-9018.

What exactly are the rights of pedestrians in BC?

With some recent high profile cases regarding pedestrian/car accidents, I thought  would write a few posts on what are the rights and obligations between cars and people using the streets and roads in British Columbia.

The first step is knowing what a crosswalk is.  Easy right?  Wrong!  There are "marked crosswalks" and "unmarked crosswalks".

Marked crosswalks are easy.  They are the ones with painted lines on the roadway.  Unmarked crosswalks are seemingly everywhere...and whether or not you are in a crosswalk makes a HUGE difference on the issue of fault if you are ever struck by a car.  Unmarked crosswalks are defined by the Motor Vehicle Act, like this:

"crosswalk" means

(a) a portion of the roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface, or

[below is the definition for unmarked crosswalks]

(b) the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway, or within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the highway, measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway;

OK, so you have to read it very carefully to understand it and even police get this wrong half the time.  Essentially, if you are on a sidewalk and there is a sidewalk going in the same direction at the other side of the street, then you are in an unmarked crosswalk when you are crossing the street. 

Crosswalks, marked or unmarked, don't take away the broken bones, so be careful crossing the road.  However, you are undoubtedly better off to cross the street in a crosswalk, so take the steps and time to cross at a crosswalk.

Look for more posts on Pedestrian Safety.

Jaywalker hit, driver blamed

Judging by the comments of readers, this headline and story in the Vancouver Sun struck a cord with angry drivers...or more accurately angry people who comment on such stories.  See the article here:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Jaywalker+driver+blamed/5210479/story.html

The accident occurred just outside of the convergence of three school zones, in an area where there is frequent jaywalking by students.  The trial judge found that the driver was negligent for not expecting that a pedestrian may be present, even though the pedestrian, a 16 year old boy, was not in a cross walk.

The judge outlined the negligence of both the driver and the pedestrian and split liability 60% against the pedestrian and 40% against the driver.  This means that the pedestrian will only receive 40% of the cost of medical care and other damages.  The rest of the costs will be born by the family.

The trial judge described the accident, some of which is below:

Once in the southbound lane, she proceeded to a point just beyond where the road expands to include a right turn lane. She then moved into that lane. It was empty; there were no cars in it between her and the Leathead intersection. Both the through lane and the left turn lane were full of vehicles, and those vehicles were stopped.

As Ms. Plummer proceeded along the right turn lane, she noticed a large tractor-trailer truck to her left. It was stopped in the line of through traffic. As a result, her view of the left turn lane and the through lane in front of the truck was entirely obscured.

Neither the trial judge nor the Court of Appeal makes reference to s.158 of the Motor Vehicle Act which reads:

158 (1) The driver of a vehicle must not cause or permit the vehicle to overtake and pass on the right of another vehicle, except

(a) when the vehicle overtaken is making a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn,

(b) when on a laned roadway there is one or more than one unobstructed lane on the side of the roadway on which the driver is permitted to drive, or

(c) on a one way street or a highway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement, where the roadway is free from obstructions and is of sufficient width for 2 or more lanes of moving vehicles.

(2) Despite subsection (1), a driver of a vehicle must not cause the vehicle to overtake and pass another vehicle on the right

(a) when the movement cannot be made safely, or

(b) by driving the vehicle off the roadway.

The motorcyclist entered the right turn lane lawfully and was lawfully allowed to overtake the large tractor trailer on the right, if it was safe to do so.  This imparts a duty on the driver to take steps to ensure that it is safe to pass on the right for the exact reasons that this accident occurred.

This section of the Motor Vehicle Act is seldom relied upon by lawyers in cases like this and I do not understand why.  It codified the reason why the motorcyclist in this case should have been more careful.  Had the lawyer told the trial  judge about this section and the trial judge relied upon it, then the entire analysis about when to expect a jaywalking pedestrian would have been unnecessary.

In my view, this case does not expand the law in any way.  Drivers and pedestrians have to each be careful on the roadway and neither can just barrel along without regard for the other.

You can read the actual Court of Appeal decision here:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/11/03/2011BCCA0335.htm

and trial decision here:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/10/10/2010BCSC1017.htm

McComb Witten launched a new website!

Check out the brand new and exciting website that McComb Witten published.

http://www.injuredbc.com/

In particular, find out more about some of my past trial wins at:

http://www.injuredbc.com/robert-marcoux.html.