B.C. Supreme Court orders ICBC to indemnify stunt driver who fails to remain at the scene of a single-vehicle collision

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has ordered the B.C.’s public insurer, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), to indemnify a professional stunt driver who lost control of his car on a slick, rainy surface at a Wendy’s drive-through at 10 p.m., knocked down the Wendy’s entrance sign, got back in his car without notifying anyone, and then went home, where he made himself a drink to calm his nerves.
The driver, cited in court documents only as “Mr. Loree,” called police the next morning at 9 a.m. to report the incident.
Police had actually knocked on Loree’s door 20 minutes after the collision (they had been called by a witness), but Loree had ignored the knocking and went to bed, thinking he had 24 hours to report the incident.
ICBC denied Mr. Loree’s claim for damages to his vehicle, saying he had breached s. 68(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, which obliges a driver to remain at the scene of an accident, as well as 68(3) of the act, when Loree failed to notify Wendy’s of the property damage. ICBC argued these breaches prejudiced its fact-finding in the case.
But the B.C. Supreme Court found the breach of s. 68(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act was irrelevant, because it relates only to multi-vehicle collisions and not single-vehicle collisions, as in Loree’s situation.
And while there was a breach of s. 68(3), the court found, this did not prejudice ICBC’s investigation, which would have explored whether alcohol was a factor in Loree’s crash.
The B.C. Supreme Court upheld the trial judge’s finding that, even if they had immediately arrived at the scene, police would nevertheless have found that alcohol was not a factor in Loree’s crash.
In other words, had the police arrived on the scene, they would have obtained the very same information the ICBC received when Loree gave the insurer his account of what had happened the next morning. The ICBC’s investigation was therefore not prejudiced.
The judge noted ICBC, although it argued it was hampered in its pursuit of evidence of alcohol consumption, nevertheless did not interview four other witnesses provided by Loree, any of which might have provided the same or similar evidence.