B.C. judge rules plaintiffs did not do enough to identify hit-and-run driver

The judge said that posting a sign or taking out an ad in a timely fashion might have jogged someone's memory or someone who knew the driver may have come forward.

A judge has denied three people compensation from ICBC following a hit-and-run case due to their lack of effort to try and locate the offending driver.

According to the ruling, around 4 a.m. on Feb. 3, 2019, a stolen GMC Sonoma pick-up truck, speeding up Sussex Avenue in Burnaby, ran a stop sign and t-boned the driver’s side of a Mercedes with the three people inside.

The truck ended up in the bushes lining the path, just east of Metrotown Mall and the Metrotown Skytrain station. The driver of the truck fled the scene and his identity remains unknown.

Under Section 24 of the Insurance Vehicle Act, anyone can seek compensation for damages or medical treatment against ICBC if the identity of the hit-and-run driver is not known.

However, it states that “In an action against the corporation as nominal defendant, a judgment against the corporation must not be given unless the court is satisfied that (a)all reasonable efforts have been made by the parties to ascertain the identity of the unknown owner and driver or unknown driver, as the case may be, and (b)the identity of those persons or that person, as the case may be, is not ascertainable.”

Larrissa Fearon, her brother Duwayne Fearon and the back passenger Shawayne Powell did not make all reasonable efforts to ascertain the identity of the unknown driver, according to the ruling.

“The plaintiffs did not take the reasonable steps to seek to learn the identity of the driver ‘resolutely and resourcefully’, as they would have done had there been no statutory (Section). 24 ICBC safety net, as required by the statute and the jurisprudence,” Mr Justice Crerar ruled.

“Rather, the plaintiffs frankly admit that they took no steps whatsoever for over a year to obtain information that could assist in identifying the fugitive driver. Given their situation and circumstances, they could and should have taken various minimally burdensome steps to fulfil their obligation under s. 24(5).”