actually icbc took is a step further and tried to bypass the lawyer even after we told icbc we were no longer going to talk to them and that our lawyer was going to be dealing with it. they call my brother directly and basically told him there was no need for a lawyer. pretty shady if you ask me.

That's what ICBC does. let your lawyer deal with it.

Do NOT trust ICBC.

The more they contact you guys, the less of a leg they have to stand on in this matter.

Let the lawyers handle it. NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY.

I've seen borderline extortion from adjusters just because they don't want to pay.

what if it was single dotted yellow line? :suspicious:

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/graphics/en...rivers/3-3.jpg

Not trying to make this thread off topic, but why don't adjusters want to pay?

Do they get commissions or bonus if they don't pay, or do they get promoted?

single broken yellow you can cross, and it usually seen in areas that have good visibility. it really depends on the type of street/driveway/intersection that contain different types of lines.. obviously double solid yellow/solid white are areas where changing lanes/turning will be generally unsafe/cause collisions due to the nature of the roadway

i guess most of you didn't study/don't remember what you studied when you read your learner's book. it is all in there.

http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing...dsense-drivers

Usually in an accident, one side is more at fault than the other. The reason why the faulted party's rates increase is to in reality pay for repairs, medical, etc. So ICBC can compensate instead of paying it out of their pockets.

When there is a LARGE amount of property damage, more serious injuries, etc, ICBC will do what it can to minimize the amoutn of $$ they will pay.

The less they pay, the more they profit. In layman's terms.


When my car was stolen, they tried REALLY hard to not compensate me for it, or for as little as possible. They accused me of scamming them, of purposely leaving the keys in the ignition, etc etc etc. Then when they tried to settle, they wanted to pay me $1800 for my old car. Cuz CL had one similar model posted on there.

There was.

But the car on CL had no ENGINE OR TRANSMISSION.



When I was rear-ended last year, they tried to tell me I'm physically fine and wanted me to sign everything and close the file on the spot. Despite me having doctor's note that I was in a lot of physical pain and was injured (rear ended by an explorer at approx 50km/h. Into my small 2 door). They balked when I told them to talk to my lawyer ONLY.

ohh okay..

Sounds like when you got rear ended, your back and neck may of gotten out of alignment from the impact (aka fast miss-alignment). This is where a chiropractor would be able to come in and help you recover by adjusting them back into position.

The reason I would suggest a chiropractor is because even getting ended for instance at a low speed like about 16 km/h / 10 mph is enough to cause the miss-alignment as well.

that and the high likelihood that he suffered from soft tissue injury would could takes months to even years to get over

Yes that's correct. Usually when the pain comes in is the soft tissue or the joints have become inflamed and your body always have those muscles turned on and trying to protect itself. Body could begin to feel stiff, therefore lacking flexibility of mobility and or pain simply putting a bit of pressure on the muscle when there would not be pain under normal condition.

I practice ICBC law (both for injured parties and more recently for ICBC), and I definitely would recommend consulting a lawyer after getting into a car accident and you are hurt. If you think about it -- ICBC is, in the end, a business. They are not in the business of handing out large insurance payouts. So you will need someone to fight on your side, and that is a lawyer that specializes in these sorts of claims. From my time in practice, I have an idea of who is good and who is not, but either way, even a crappy lawyer will be able to get you more than you would on your own, even after you pay him/her a percentage cut.

Personally, I would get a lawyer simply to make ICBC pay more, even if it meant I end up getting the same after lawyer fees.

Yep...let's make ICBC pay more. Now why are my premiums going up again this year? If you make "them" pay more, we all end up having increased premiums. The money ICBC pays out on claims comes from your wallet.

True, but in the end, what are those premiums for? They're for compensating you if/when things turn to shit. So if/when they turn to shit, do you want to get full value for your investment, or do you want to settle for pennies on the dollar?

I did go through the entire procedure of physio, chiro and rehab. It's been 1.5 years now, and even now, after the file is closed, my right shoulder would get sore after intense exercise and workouts. Pretty much stuck this way for a while =(

Police do not asses fault in a collision. They determine from the evidence before them if an offence has been committed. This does not automatically deem the other driver at fault. ICBC determines fault based on a number of factors but their rules are much different than those of Criminal Court. Civil liability is much different. As some have noted simply allow your signal to activate once or twice then turning may be deemed legal in a criminal stand point but would likely be deemed unsafe or reckless civily. A driver has a duty of care to make any movements with due care and as has been pointed out you can not simply just turn because your signal is on with out first ensuring that movement can be made safely. If you are driving that slow on a roadway a prudent driver should expect other drivers would likely pass them and as such any movement that would interfere with them doing so would have to be made very cautiously. Also your thread title is missleading as I did not read anything that would suggest the officer lied. He gave an account based on his observations, just like your brother. Maybe your brother lied about signalling as there is as much evidence of that in your post as the other person lied.

I suspect the end result will be a 50%/50%.

The province needs to improve their instruction on driving and teach much more defensive driving and things like this would stop happening.

small update on this:

our lawer was able to get copies of the officers notes from the scene of the crash as well as a copy of the other drivers icbc statement. the statement the other driver gave the officer at the scene matches my brothers statement at the scene and the statement my brother gave to icbc but does not match at all the statement icbc has from the other driver. the case has now been given the run around for the last little while as the case gets passed from adjuster to adjuster but atm acording to out lawyer things are looking very good for my brothers case.


the guy told icbc my brother was actually parked in the middle of the road. but told the officer he was driving slow.

Recent case law on this situation:

2013 BCSC 2027 Ekman v. Cook

"In my view, the appropriate apportionment of liability is 75% to the plaintiff and 25% to Ms. Cook"

I presume this is the most important part from that judgement.

yes the end result was 75/25, but the driver of the truck made her case worse by talking too much.

"On the whole of the evidence, I find that Ms. Cook’s recollections of time, distances, measurements and the steps she took to determine whether her left turn could be made safely is generally unreliable. "

Ms.Cook being the driver of the truck that turned. Regardless, she was found only 25% at fault, and the accident doesn't affect her policy. The motorcycle rider who went to pass will still collect 25% of the pain and suffering money he is entitled to...

I don't think I see this mentioned anywhere but would I be correct to presume that the other guy (the cop) passed on the LEFT of the guy making the turn?? If so, then that's a real jackass thing to try to do. Not to mention driving into oncoming traffic. If he were able he could have passed on the right or just waited for him to complete his turn (illegal or not).

I'm not sure how the OP's brother could possibly be at fault?

yes he passes on the left. crossing a solid single yellow and into oncoming traffic.

case is still being given the run around. i will still provide updates as we get them.

UPDATE: ok so we finally got another offer. according to our lawyer the case got passed around to a number of different adjusters and non of them wanted to deal with the claim. it finally ended up back in the lap of the original adjuster who made the first offer. he clearly had a change of heart. the new offer is 75 -25 with the 25 being placed onto my brother and the 75 on the off duty officer. it also includes a decent sum of money for injury and medical. the 25% also removes any insurance penalty my brother would have seen. our lawyer did not accept the offer and is still pushing for more compensation and the full 0% liability. back to the waiting game.

I am sure many have said similar things or offered a bunch of explainations. From a 27 year career in policing and 17 of those in traffic in the LMD I would suspect that some of those are likely correct and/or appropriate. From you original post I would offer this:

One I agree with some the title is missleading as there is no and you offer no evidence that the off duty member is lying. He is providing his perspective and you validate it somewhat in your explaination that it blinked once or twice. I ask is that sufficient warning to other drivers of your intent to perform the action indicated. Not likely.

If this is a residential road with not dividing marks then it is completely legal to pass and from your explaination quite expected and normal if your brother was driving very slowly and obviously looking for something, why would other drivers has to follow allong. It would be incumbent on your brother to before turning ensure that could be done safely.

Teh fact the other driver was charged with an offence does not mean they are automatically found at fault. civil responsibility is different from criminal responsibility. Civily they would look at what an average normal person or driver would do in a situation and what a responsible driver would do.

So would given the circumstances what would the average driver do from both perspectives. They then determine from that fault, in this case I can see an arguement for both sides and would have expected that they may go 50%.... It seems with a bit of fighting (that often helps your case) they went 75% to the other and 25% to you. They may have done the same for him if he put up a fight as well.

Anyway good to see it is sorted out and you are ok with the result.