I've recently been in an Automobile accident where my liability was
recently decided to be 100% my fault. The reasoning behind this was
that it was, that ICBC (Insurance Company of British Columbia) decided
it was a single car accident instead of a multi- car accident.

Since I seem to have been stuck with being liable by the insurance
company, I am prepared to fight all the way to court so my insurance
rates don't skyrocket. I simply want another driver to claim
responsibility.

Here is what happened: 

At night, I was driving along a highway approximately 90km/h with a
speed limit of the same. There were no other cars, conditions were
fine. I turned a dark corner to see an object laying on the road at
the last second. I had no time to react, so I promptly slammed on the
brakes and hit the object going nearly full speed. I then slowed down
as my car was under control to notice another car in the ditch with
his lights on.

Then the police arrived and gave an accident report with a total of
three vehicles involved.

Here is what I found out after the crash. The guy in the ditch knocked
over the light post onto the highway. A person ahead of me driving a
car ran over it first...I never saw him, and neither did he see the
lamp post smash down. However, judging from the car in the ditch, it
was obvious he hit the pole. He was a hundred metre's past where the
light post fell.

The first person who ran over the pole's car was damaged severely
enough to be towed. Mine suffered bumper and signal light injuries
enough for ICBC to write the car off.

The accident report indeed charged the original driver for failure to
keep on the road. He has been charged.

Since the pole was not moving, the insurance company argued that I
should see anything lying on the road. And there is no difference
between a tree that has been blown down by wind or a vehicle that
caused a light pole to go on the road. IT might be important to note
ICBC is the only auto insurance company in BC that provides basic
insurance.

I believe I could not see the pole as it was dark and I was turning a
corner. Added, the pole blended into the road until the last minute
when my beams caught the object lying accross the road with no where
to go.

I am simply looking for at least two cases in court that have the
liability on the original driver, where the driver who caused the pole
to fall was responsible. A case where a driver knocks something on to
the highway and the driver behind cannot react is what I am looking
for. However, the object must not be in motion, the one that was
knocked on the highway by a driver. The object must not be seen until
the last moment by the driver approaching. I have searched google for
any case of a driver hitting a lamp post and another driver hitting it
afterwards with no avail. Preferably the case should be in Canada or
the commonwealth.

Good luck.

---

Clarification of Question by ywamperth-ga on 17 Jun 2002 14:26 PDT

To clarify, I was not "Driving Too Fast for Conditions." I was driving
the speed limit around a corner that was not lighted due to the light
pole being knocked out in the area. Should I driver 30km/h on a dark
highway to see everything? No light also made the pole difficult to
see. The sticky point with the insurance company is that another
driver caused a pole to fall. His stupidity. The Motor Vehicle Act in
my province in fact prohibits any person to put objects that may harm
another person on the highway. Another piece of information that is
helpful to me is that the driver who ran over the pole in the first
place was declared not at fault. However, if they change his decision
in light of my decision to be at fault, I wish for some precedence.

---

Request for Question Clarification by weisstho-ga on 18 Jun 2002 19:35 PDT

I have searched various of the Canadian and BC court sites with no
results for you.

You do not mention that the police officer on the scene cited you for
any wrongdoing. Assuming that you were not cited (and personally I
can't imagine that you would have been) then there would appear to
have been NO LEGAL FAULT on you - your conduct was judged, on the
scene, to have been within the law.

It may be semantics, but I don't think it is proper to characterize
ICBC's decision as "being liable" - I don't think that you are or were
liable. ICBC just doesn't want to pay out based upon their
interpretation of the policy (contract) language (you really don't
want to get ME started on insurance companies  :o)

I would suggest that you read the insurance policy CAREFULLY - I know,
it is like, well, reading an insurance policy - there is nothing
worse. BUT, therein will lie the answer. I don't believe caselaw is
what you want - the "case" will rise or fall on the interpretation of
the contract language.

Good luck. Driver #1's negligence caused the light pole to be in the
road (an attorney should tell you too whether you have a case against
Driver #1 OR HIS INSURANCE POLICY).

Good luck!

weisstho-ga

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/

My friend, I believe the term you are looking for is "Driving Too Fast
for Conditions."  You state it was dark, you were rounding a curve,
and you didn't see the pole untill it was too late.

Unfortunately, you are at fault there.  You may have some civil
recourse on your own against the other driver who caused the hazard.

Good luck, and drive safely!

This comment may do nothing more than help you not give up...my case
was in the U.S. I was injured (concussion) in a very similar accident
over 10 years ago and was not considered liable at all, in fact I won
a modest settlement for hostpital bills and a replacement car. Of
course, this was because I hired an attorney. Here's what happened: I
was driving at night (not raining) and ran smack into a truck parked
sideways across the road. This truck was in the process of pulling
another car out of a ditch with a chain. There were no lights on the
truck, no hazard signs (like orange cones) or whatever because it was
just a guy who stopped to help the person in the ditch. The people
said they were waving their arms but I never saw them. So, before I
knew it, I was headed toward's this trucks driver's side door and
slammed on my brakes, just to skid right into it. Thankfully nobody
was in the truck... I was the only one injured. I hope this helps your
resolve... let me know if you want me to look up the papers for more
information.

-- mother-ga

If driving at the speed limit around a dark corner where a lamp is
missing is not too fast for conditions, how fast might you have gone
if the lamp had been operating? Face it, you were going too fast. The
right speed for conditions is slow enough to avoid unexpected
obstacles. In this case even 30 kph may have been too fast. The speed
limit is a maximum, not a minimum.

In my part of the world, if a deer is standing in the middle of the road and you
hit it on a motorcycle or car, it is covered by the insurance company
under the "Act of God" clause.   Same as if a tree fell over on top of
your car sitting in the driveway.   I was covered under this myself.  
In your case it was a non-moving non-living object but I'd still argue that
this is applicable.  Of course your insurance may simply have no
such provision.  

For the folks who claim "too fast for conditions".  I'd bet any one of
you $100 that if I picked any unlit 2 lane highway in the country
and threw a tree trunk down across the road midcorner at night,
9 cars out of 10 would run right into it, and probably half of
them wouldn't even hit the brakes first.   The conditions were simply
dry road at night, and things like someone knocking
a light pole down in the middle of the road are *practically*
unavoidable and the damage caused by those sort of things is 
 what insurance is for.  

The insurance company doesn't want to pay.  They have
lawyers, you don't.  Yet.   Get a lawyer and fight it.  Don't
try to do it yourself.   The money you spend on a lawyer
will be recouped in lower insurance rates from this
or other companies you insure with. 

    ian

There are a lot of little rules to judge if you are travelling fast
enough or too fast.  The newer 2-second rulem and the older car-length
rule.  The 2-second rule being that you must keep 2 seconds between
your car and the one ahead of you, and the faster you travel, the
further the distance.  That was changed from the previous rule that
you must keep 1 car-length for every 10 mph you are travelling.  Both
rules provide the same distances, but the 2-second rule is easier
because it takes less thought to calculate and makes driving in
traffic easier and increases your reaction time.

Back to your case, by your own admission you said you had no time to
react to the thing in the road.  Because you said this, you are saying
you didn't provide enough reaction time to provide corrective steering
and braking.  If I were the judge, I wouldn't find you guilty of
wrecking or the BC law you state about being illegal to cause other
motorists driving hazards, but I would find you guilty of failure to
reduce speed based on hazardous conditions.  If it was dark out and
you were going around a corner, you should have reduced your speed
already because night time is very hazardous around corners.  In any
situation you must provide yourself enough reaction time to be safer.

There are three issues here. 

1). Any citations by the police (or lack thereof)
2). Your "fault" as determined by your insurance company
3).  The civil liability (if any) of the other driver.

Although they are related, they are separate issues --- a  decision
regarding one issue does not automatically affect decisions regarding
other issues.

The insurance company is not bound by the decisions of the police
report when assigning fault.  The police are granted a lot of leeway
whether or not to issue a citation.  Just because you were not cited
does not mean you cannot be found at fault.  Similarly, an insurance
company's finiding of fault has little, if any bearing on the civil
liability of the other drivers (except possibly in "No-fault" states).
 One is determined by an insurance contract, the other is determined
by applicable laws and (in some cases) a jury.  Thus, you could be
found at fault, and still win a civil suit against the other driver(s)

In general, when driving you are expected to maintain a speed at which
you can see and react to any stationary obstacles in your path.  This
is not changed by the fact that 9 out 10 drivers do not do this.  
Unless there is something hidden away in BC law, you will probably not
get anywhere with the insurance company.

You will probably have better luck suing the driver who created the
hazard.  But, first consult with a lawyer to make sure you have a
case.