A bike owner who took motion towards an insurer, moderately than the driving force of the motorized vehicle concerned in an accident, not too long ago noticed his case dismissed.
The small claims dispute earlier than British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) famous that on October 26, 2022, Sean Daniel Murphy rode his bicycle from a sidewalk throughout a non-public parking zone laneway earlier than colliding with a motorized vehicle insured by the Insurance coverage Company of British Columbia (ICBC). Each Murphy’s bicycle and the automobile had been broken.
An ICBC investigation discovered Murphy totally chargeable for the collision. ICBC paid the automobile restore prices and sought reimbursement from Murphy, who disagreed with the insurer’s evaluation that he was solely chargeable for the $1,574.99 price to exchange his bicycle and argued the automobile’s driver was touring at an unsafe velocity and never paying consideration.
Murphy additionally claimed ICBC overpaid for the automobile repairs and that he shouldn’t be chargeable for paying them.
Who’s insured?
ICBC famous Murphy doesn’t have a coverage with them, in order that they’re not chargeable for changing his bicycle. And, it counterclaimed for an order that Murphy pay the $2,802.33 for automobile repairs.
On the day of the accident, CRT famous Murphy cycled north alongside a sidewalk separating a furnishings retailer from a parking zone and headed towards a perpendicular laneway working between the furnishings retailer’s northern wall and one other retailer’s southern wall.
“Concrete obstacles block the furnishings retailer’s parking zone on the north finish [preventing] autos from exiting the furnishings retailer’s parking zone and getting into the laneway,” wrote tribunal member Christopher Rivers in an April 24 resolution.
Murphy rode by way of a niche between the barrier and the furnishings retailer because the automobile driver drove west alongside the laneway towards a street. Murphy mentioned the automobile didn’t see him so he braked, inflicting him to swerve, fly off his bicycle and hit the automobile’s rear panel. Images of the automobile present a dent within the panel above the rear wheel, a scrape alongside one other panel and partial separation of the rear bumper.
Murphy mentioned ICBC ought to pay to exchange his bicycle, and argued it shouldn’t have discovered him 100% chargeable for the accident.
“Nevertheless, Mr. Murphy has incorrectly introduced his declare towards ICBC as an alternative of the automobile driver,” Rivers wrote. “He doesn’t have a declare in negligence towards ICBC. I be aware additional that ICBC says Mr. Murphy didn’t have any contract of insurance coverage below which it should pay him, so he additionally has no declare for breach of contract or statutory obligation.
“I dismiss Mr. Murphy’s declare towards ICBC [but] nothing on this resolution prevents [him] from submitting a dispute towards the third celebration driver, topic to the relevant limitation interval.”
ICBC’s view
The tribunal famous a January 4, 2023 e mail from ICBC mentioned, “Murphy did not yield the proper of solution to the automobile whereas he was exiting a parking zone.”
Addressing this, CRT famous the laneway servicing the parking heaps meets the Motor Car Act’s definition of a freeway, below which references to a ‘driver’ would come with “a reference to a bike owner.” Rivers added the Act requires freeway customers to use due care and a focus to others utilizing the freeway.
“When he approached the east-west laneway, [Murphy] was hidden from oncoming site visitors by the furnishings retailer,” the judgement learn. “The concrete obstacles positioned to forestall automobile site visitors from getting into the laneway made it unlikely {that a} automobile would out of the blue seem travelling north between parking heaps.”
The automobile, in the meantime, was travelling alongside a marked two-way lane and the concrete obstacles alongside the sting of the furnishings retailer parking zone gave the driving force affordable expectation that nothing would out of the blue enter the lane from the south.
“I discover the driving force couldn’t have anticipated Mr. Murphy to bicycle by way of the hole between the barrier and the shop at a velocity that prevented him from stopping safely,” Rivers wrote. “So, I discover Mr. Murphy’s negligence was the collision’s sole trigger.”
A December 20, 2022 letter from ICBC requested that Murphy pay $3,802.33 for repairs to the automobile. Rivers famous the driving force had paid a $1,000 deductible. “I discover the load of the proof earlier than me helps ICBC’s place. So, I discover the repairs had been for injury attributable to Mr. Murphy’s negligent operation of his bicycle and I order that he reimburse ICBC $2,796.03,” his judgement learn.
The tribunal dismissed the case and ordered Murphy to pay ICBC $3,049.87, which incorporates some charges and prices.
Characteristic picture by iStock/kraftmen
