In response to hearing the siren of an approaching fire engine, Cindy Li slowed in preparation to yield to it. While her vehicle was still moving, it was struck from behind by another car. She stopped, exited her car, walked back to the other car and spoke to the young male driver, requesting that he pull over to exchange information. As she returned to her car, the male drove around her and disappeared from sight.
Ms. Li went to the fire hall and spoke with a captain there. The captain told her that one of the firemen on the truck witnessed the collision. She obtained the captain's name and telephone number and reported the collision to ICBC. The collision was not reported to the police nor was there any information obtained from other motorists present at the collision.
After participating in the claims process ICBC told Ms. Li that she had not fulfilled her obligations to identify the offending driver and denied the claim as a hit and run. Li would have to proceed as a normal collision claim and as she did not have collision coverage, would have to pay for the damages herself. She sued ICBC in B.C. Supreme Court saying that she did what she could and ICBC should have advised her that she needed to do more. The court did not agree and dismissed the suit.
The Insurance (Vehicle) Act requires that the victim of a hit and run must make all reasonable efforts to discover who the driver and owner of the suspect vehicle is and satisfy the court that the identity of those persons cannot be found. If you were unable to find information at the scene initially, you might consider canvassing nearby homes or businesses, placing an ad in the newspaper or posting a sign requesting help. It is also wise to report the incident to police and ICBC immediately.
Reference Links:
- Li v ICBC - Reasons for Judgment
- Remedy for Damage in a Hit and Run Accident - Section 24 Insurance (Vehicle) Act
- Hit and Run Claims
Related Case Law:
Doesn't surprise me that the court sided with the government in this one.
The victim appears to have made a reasonable effort - still shaken up from the collision and possibly not thinking clearly as a result, asked the offending driver to stop and exchange information.
It was the offending driver, not the victim, who was in the wrong here - It's sad that ICBC would ignore the report of the fireman who witnessed the crash.
- Log in to post comments
From the article:
"The Insurance (Vehicle) Act requires that the victim of a hit and run must make all reasonable efforts to discover who the driver and owner of the suspect vehicle is"
Her actions in the circumstances were quite reasonable.
Since both judges and ICBC are extensions of government, is there not a conflict of interest in having judges try cases involving ICBC? Even if the conflict of interest exists only in perception, then there is still a problem.
It is not up to the citizenry to investigate.
Are we now expected to take photographs of the damage, the other car's damage and the other car's driver?
Seems prudent.
This is a far cry from 1980. In that year I hit a parked car in the dark at about 02:00 in the morning. There was no-one around.
The only damage to the other vehicle was a broken tail-light lens.
I left a note, including my full contact information. I was contacted by ICBC when I returned home, and told them everything. I heard nothing more for 8 months.
After 8 months, I answered the door to an RCMP officer who informed me I was charged with leaving the scene of an accident.
The other vehicle's owner said I left no note (OK, how did ICBC contact me?) and claimed damages of more than 10,000 including damage to front of the vehicle.
ICBC paid that claim.
I was *not* acquitted of the charge, but the crown enterred a stay of proceedings because the "witness" could not be found.
- Log in to post comments
Since both judges and ICBC are extensions of government, is there not a conflict of interest in having judges try cases involving ICBC? Even if the conflict of interest exists only in perception, then there is still a problem.
It's simplistic to refer to these as extensions of government.
As I understand it, ICBC is basically a crown corporation, answerable to the BC Utilities Commision.
And the judicial system is separate from government, as it must be in a democracy; it's entirely possible for members of government to be put on trial when appropriate.
I wonder if Cindy Li could appeal to the Ombudsman?
- Log in to post comments
The sad story about Cindy Li is yet another perfect example of how failing to learn, know and exercise your rights (common law and statutory) will only lead to injustice; and also how leaning, knowing and exercising your inherent inalienable rights is a powerful way to create a peaceful, respectful and balanced society for all people. As the trusted and not-so-common saying goes - "Those who give up liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security."
This is not only a growing problem for new Canadian citizens - immigrants coming to Canada to seek refuge from their homeland totalitarian governments who disregard human life and the dignity of a free society and free institutions (See Canadian Bill of Rights 1960) - but also for natural born Canadians at large.
Seen in this YouTube video, (9:00 min mark) this group of new Canadian citizens make an oath to "faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen."
How can someone make an oath to fulfill a duty in which they do not know or have never been taught? This applies to both emmigrated Canadians and natural born Canadians.
And for this oath to be binding to these new Canadians, where is the duty of the State and Authorities to provide adequate training and education in respect to the history and hierarchy of our common law based legal system.
If the Canadian public education system conveniently omits the teaching of our rights and legal training while propagating and promoting the concept of central control of authority, what kind of training is given to new these new Canadians?
Cindy, like many other Canadians innocently do not know their rights and subsequently the limitations of others, including the government, agencies and officials - those in power with the most to loose having a large population of Canadians know how the game of control works.
And it's also clear that the State doesn't mind a weak and disinformed population in respect to their duties and upholding the Law - there's too much money to be made by insurance companies and the growing police state.
As documented on this website there were 446, 694 traffic convictions in 2014. Average each traffic conviction with a generous $150 per fine and you collect over $67 million dollars. Keep in mind this number will probably be double as some traffic tickets exceed triple $150.
Do you know how much bureaucracy $67 million dollars can create? Could be a reason the recent Bill C51 is being pa$$ed through legi$lation.
Learning your rights and the accurate history of our legal system is a good way to take back your individual power while creating through demonstration the world (or community) you want to see. The good news is that while most Canadians choose security over liberty, this unbalance can never negate those who know and exercise their rights maintaining the balance of power.
Choosing liberty over security; you may not necessarily live longer, but at least you'll live with power!!
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Doesn't surprise me that the