B.C. driver who took speed limit sign as 'suggestion,' despite bad weather, tries to sue over crash into truck

(Shutterstock.com)

A British Columbia driver who was injured in a car crash several years ago said in a lawsuit involving the provincial auto insurer that she took a speed advisory sign as a "suggestion," despite poor weather conditions.

The driver was hurt in a crash near Pender Harbour on B.C.'s Sunshine Coast the summer of 2016. The court heard, in her attempt to sue, that she lost control of her vehicle and struck an oncoming truck head-on.

The driver took her insurer and those who maintain the stretch of highway where she'd crashed to court, even naming the Province of British Columbia initially.

She later dropped her action against the province and the road maintenance company, but the Insurance Company of British Columbia (ICBC) remained a defendant in the case heard recently in court.

The trial occurred in the fall, but a judgment was not released until earlier this month. That judgment, posted online, included details of what was presented in the trial.

Documents show that the driver alleged negligence against an unidentified owner and operator of a vehicle she said is responsible for a fuel spill on the road, claiming that person caused the accident, thus ICBC was named as the nominal defendant in the case.

The court heard the woman was 33 at the time of the crash. She and her younger sister had left her parents' home in Powell River and drove her father's Jeep toward Gibsons. According to testimony in court, it was a rainy day and the road was wet as they headed from the Earl's Cove ferry terminal to the Langdale terminal.

The sisters were travelling south on Highway 101, which, the judge wrote, "curves and undulates with hills and dales."

The plaintiff told the court she'd been driving below the posted speed limit of 60 km/h because of the poor weather conditions. She approached a curve in the road, which was sharp enough that a yellow sign was posted advising drivers to slow down to 30 km/h before taking the sharp right-hand turn.

The driver did not slow down to 30, and while turning into the curve, crossed the double solid line into the oncoming lane.

It was there that she collided with the driver of a pickup truck, she said.

She refused to be taken to hospital after the crash and didn't report any neck pain, dizziness or headaches at the time, but went to a hospital in Metro Vancouver later that night complaining of pain in her chest and ankle. She was diagnosed with neck strain and an ankle fracture.

She told the court that she had a panic attack after the crash, and after years of sobriety, had started drinking again. Nearly two years later, she saw a neurologist who said she had symptoms consistent with someone who may have had a concussion, but that an exam produced normal results.

She said she also had ongoing issues with her neck, shoulder and back, as well as daily headaches, difficulty focusing and sensitivity to light, smell and noise.

Several medical experts gave evidence in court.

It's unclear how fast the woman was going at that time, but she told the court she thought the speed limit for the turn was a "suggestion."

A transcript of a statement she'd made to a police officer showed she and her sister said they were travelling at a speed between 30 and 50 km/h. The driver's sister said "Probably like 50," then said "Probably like 40" when the police officer repeated her answer. Then she said "It was probably like between 30 and 40, in that range."

Still, she claimed the fault wasn't hers, saying she should have easily been able to go around the curve, according to the judgment, but lost control because of a substance on the road.

She claimed the substance, the existence of which has not been proven, was probably fuel spilled by another unidentified vehicle and driver.

She also said it could be oil brought to the road's surface by the rain, something she said her father told her can happen during wet weather.

A police officer said he too noted what he assumed was a fuel spill in the southbound lane around the collision site. The officer said he contacted the highway maintenance company to clean up the spill that day.

A fire chief in the area said he too noticed the highway was slippery, as did the plaintiff's sister.

But in terms of who is at fault, the plaintiff disagreed with some involved in the trial.

She alleged negligence and breach of statutory duty against ICBC, but the province's auto insurance provider said there was no hit-and-run driver identified, and that "the involvement of an unidentified vehicle is purely speculative."

ICBC said too that the evidence of any kind of spill on the highway is "speculative and inconclusive," and noted the plaintiff admitted to speeding around the corner. The corporation claimed the crash wouldn't have happened, even if there was a spill, if the driver was going the posted speed limit of 30 km/h.

The judge in the case didn't fully agree with ICBC's side, but dismissed the case, saying the plaintiff "failed to establish liability against the unidentified owner and operator of the vehicle that she alleged caused the accident."

But, the judge said, if the case is appealed, the plaintiff's damages have been assessed at $895,436.45 in total, including non-pecuniary damages, loss of past and future income and future cost of care.

Among those expenses are future counselling and physiotherapy.