Source: https://elawtalk.com/hit-and-run-car-accidents-in-bc/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 12:53:18+00:00

Document:
What Happens if You're a Victim of a Hit and Run Car Accident in BC?
The names of both the owner and driver of the vehicle must not have been ascertainable, or if the owner is not liable, the name of the driver must not be known.
What is considered a highway?
Every private place or passageway to which the public, for the purpose of the parking or servicing of vehicles, has access to or is invited to.
Essentially, to determine whether a road is a “highway” the Court will consider how it was intended to be used, and whether it was intended that the public should have access to it. It is important to note that even if the road was intended to be private it will be considered a highway if the individual was invited to drive on it.
What is not considered a highway?
What does it mean to say that the “loss must arise from the use or operation of a motor vehicle”?
How can a plaintiff establish that the driver or owner of the vehicle was not ascertainable?
Under s. 24 of the Act it is clear that a claimant must make all attempts to identify the party who has injured them. This may include (but is not limited to) asking them to identify themselves, obtaining a police report, or posting signs.
What if the person liable for the injury was identified at the time of the accident but their information was subsequently lost?
According to the BC Court of Appeal in Linhares v. Insurance no claim can be made against ICBC if the party responsible was ever identified, even if their information was subsequently lost. For example, say Darren was hit by a driver while riding his bicycle, but was not terribly injured. Although the parties exchanged information, Darren lost the paper on which it was written. A few weeks later fine, he later developed a significant cognitive disorder and stutter which he believed was due to the accident. Darren could not then bring an action against ICBC, even though no longer had the driver’s information because at one time the driver was ascertainable. Similarly, if an action against ICBC was started because a driver or owner could not be identified, but the police later ascertain the culprit, the action against ICBC must be dropped.
According to s. 24(5) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act a court may not make a judgment against ICBC unless it is satisfied that the claimant, not ICBC, has made a “reasonable effort” to identify the unknown driver or owner. If the claimant had the opportunity to identify the party at the scene of the accident, and failed to do so, ICBC can not be found liable. As noted above, if Darren told the driver not to worry about leaving information because he was not injured, he could not turn around and later bring an action against ICBC if a condition developed. If however, Darren was in shock after the accident and could not identify the driver he will not be barred from making a claim against ICBC. To be in “shock” means the injured party was “surprised and confused at the scene” and does not require a medical certificate.
Are there limits to how much a plaintiff may recover in an unidentified driver situation?
Yes. Section 105 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act maintains that the total recovery may not exceed $200,000 inclusive of all awards, interest, and costs.
Are there limitation periods to bringing a claim against ICBC?
Yes. There are both notice and limitiation periods. Generally, written notice must be given to ICBC as soon as possible. Failure to abide by the nice and limitation periods may result in an inability to collect from the insurance company. If you are considering bringing an action where the driver or owner of a vehicle cannot be identified you should speak with a lawyer to ensure you do not miss your opportunity.
Michael W. Biggs [et al.] British Columbia Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Practice Manual (Vancouver: Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia, 2011) Looseleaf, 6-2.
 Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996, c. 318.
 Jassal v. Hera (1991) 5 C.C.L.I. (2d) 251 (BCSC).
 Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Routley (1995) 14 B.C.L.R. (3d) 279 (C.A.).
 Stevenson v. Reliance Petroleum Ltds., (1956) SCR 936.
 Victoria U Drive Yourself Auto Livery Ltd. v. Wood (1930) 1 W.W.R. 552 (B.C.C.A.).
 Insurance (Vehicle) Act, RSBC 1996, c 231.
 Hocaluk v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia 2007 BCSC 170.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.