A Richmond man will get a refund for his deductibles and increased insurance premium after taking IC小蓝视频 to the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT).
In 2022, when Gordon Jaggs collided with a person riding an electric scooter on the sidewalk while exiting the driveway of his Richmond condo.
According to Jaggs, IC小蓝视频 originally found him 100 per cent responsible but reduced it to 75 per cent after an appeal.
Jaggs took IC小蓝视频 to the CRT, claiming IC小蓝视频 acted unfairly by failing to properly consider the e-scooter rider's speed and the fact e-scooters are prohibited on sidewalks.
Furthermore, he argued IC小蓝视频 unreasonably found him in breach of obligations under the Motor Vehicle Act.
He sought to get a refund of his $300 deductible and a $550 increase to his insurance premium.
On Dec. 12, CRT tribunal member Kristin Gardner issued a decision finding IC小蓝视频's assessment was unfair and unreasonable.
According to Gardner's decision, Jaggs said he didn't see any pedestrians or vehicles when he checked the left and then the right to turn right onto Westminster Highway.
As he "slowly pulled onto the road," Jaggs heard a loud thud against the passenger side of his car. When he stopped and got out, he found someone on an e-scooter travelling east on the sidewalk "at a high rate of speed" struck his vehicle from the right.
The person, who reported the incident to IC小蓝视频, said they were riding their e-scooter to work and "rode on the sidewalk for safety reasons because Westminster Highway did not have a bike lane." They claimed they were "only about three meters away" from Jaggs' car and did not have enough braking distance.
They added they did not have a record of the speed but they were "surely" riding at a low speed because they were on the sidewalk.
IC小蓝视频 decided the person riding the e-scooter was 25 per cent responsible for riding on the sidewalk but Jaggs had a "greater responsibility" since he was entering the roadway from a driveway.
Gardner found IC小蓝视频 had no basis to find Jaggs was negligent or in breach of the Motor Vehicle Act obligation for drivers to yield the right of way to pedestrians on a sidewalk while stopped before the sidewalk.
Jaggs had stopped before driving onto the sidewalk, said Gardner, and the person on an e-scooter was not a pedestrian.
"Even if there was a 'high onus' on Mr. Jaggs to ensure it was safe when emerging from the driveway, as IC小蓝视频 submits, IC小蓝视频 did not suggest there was something different Mr. Jaggs could have done in the circumstances to avoid the accident," wrote Gardner.
She added IC小蓝视频 did not consider the fact that Jaggs' view was obstructed by hedges and he had time to slowly emerge and come to a stop on the sidewalk before the person on the e-scooter started braking.
E-scooter rider breached regulations
Gardner also rejected Jaggs' suggestion that a fair liability assessment would be a 50/50 split, finding the person on the e-scooter to be 100 per cent responsible for the accident.
She found the person on the e-scooter was in breach of the Electric Kick Scooter Pilot Project Regulation and City of Richmond bylaws for riding on the sidewalk.
They also "should have been on high alert for vehicles emerging" from Jaggs' driveway because it would have been apparent to him that drivers doing so would have their view to the west obscured by hedges.
Although the person on the e-scooter claimed to have been riding at a "low speed," Gardner disagreed because they likely would have been able to stop in time to avoid the collision if this were true.
She determined Jaggs had the right of way and likely did not see the person on the e-scooter because they were "still some distance away."
Gardner concluded the e-scooter rider's negligence caused the accident.
IC小蓝视频 was ordered to pay Jaggs a total of $925.04, including $775 in damages to reimburse his insurance deductible and increased premium, pre-judgment interest and CRT fees.
Got an opinion on this story or any others in Richmond? or email your thoughts or story tips to [email protected].
