r/icbc • u/ContextSafe2740 • 12d ago
Claims ICBC says I'm at fault, but other driver admitted she was distracted. Worth disputing?
Hi all, looking for advice. I have about 15 years of driving with no prior accidents.
I was in a parallel parking spot, adjusting the car's position before pulling out. I hadn't pulled out yet (only the front-left of my car was out as I was still adjusting). The other car, in the main lane, hit my front-left fender its front-right bumper. My fender is damaged and the front bumper came off entirely, so it will likely need replacing. The other driver's car has a dent in the front bumper but no other damage. Thankfully, no one was hurt.
At the scene, the other driver told me she was at fault because she was distracted by her screen. There was plenty of room in the lanes, and she could have stopped or driven around as I still wasn't pulled out into the lane. A witness standing nearby saw the accident and I believe heard her say it.
When I reported the accident, ICBC told me I'm liable because I was leaving a parked position and the other car had right of way. I disagree, and I understand I have 90 days to dispute.
A few questions:
- Should I ask the witness and the other driver to give ICBC a statement, or should I leave that to the adjuster?
- Has anyone successfully disputed a fault decision like this? What made the difference?
- Is a case like this worth disputing?
Thanks in advance!
8
u/GrandmaWeedMan 12d ago
Not worth even attempting to dispute. You'll just make things worse for yourself. On paper and frankly in reality you pulled out into active traffic. You're in the wrong. If you need to perform a 3 point maneuver to leave your parallel parking spot then it's your responsibility to ensure the active traffic lane will be clear during that entire maneuver.
"I hadn't pulled out yet"
Yes you had. Stop minimizing it and have some insight.
7
3
u/QuesoDelDiablo 12d ago
In some cases the other driver being distracted doesn't matter. You are a categorically at fault for that accident.
4
u/noncil 12d ago
you can try, but watch what you say so it won't incriminate yourself. The last time I had a minor fender bender more than 10 yrs ago, they blamed me even though I couldn't have done anything different. Escalating it was useless since they kept insisting on the rules that makes no sense.
2
u/dropthemasq 12d ago
Doesn't matter. You left your position of safety. It was your responsibility to make sure the coast was clear before moving your car. They were already established. Take the hit, learn from it.
2
2
u/chickenandwaffles21 12d ago
just curious, did this happen a few weeks ago, downtown victoria, by the value village in front of Jam ?
1
u/trikkytrev 12d ago
Noting to dispute.
You were leaving the parking spot.
Unless the other driver admits they were at fault, or it can be *proven* they were distracted, any dispute will fail.
1
u/Valentine14May 11d ago
No. You're at fault. Your car shouldn't even be "peaking out".. especially since you do NOT have right of way. Other car does; as they are travelling in that lane established. You got in their way; You're 100% at fault
1
u/algonogo1 12d ago
Supreme Court of Canada would say you are not at fault regardless of what these basics in this comments section would say.
Go to canlii.org and read their ruling on brownlee. 1956 ruling that's been cited 450 times in liability rulings since then.
Few things though..the evidence act deals with the effect of a sorry on liability.. Basically.. because this is canada..someone saying sorry at an accident scene is not an admission of guilt.. ( I love this country)
One gem from that ruling..
"The rule of right of way was never enacted to allow blind driving"
Go fight if you wish!
3
u/HWY01 12d ago
This case would never reach Supreme Court and he has no proof the other driver was distracted, even if she admitted to being distracted that’s not admission of guilt
1
u/algonogo1 12d ago
That's not the point of case law. So like..the judges are saying negligence rules all. So..now all judges must look at it from a place of negligence. It wouldn't need to go to them because the idea has been ruled on already.
This is what I mean when I say..basic's in the comment section btw
1
u/algonogo1 11d ago
Also..yes it is. As you can see..the supreme court revers the right of way decision literally because the person didn't bother to look left.
So..like..wrong multiple places in one small post
0
u/efc5463 12d ago
You could. Unfortunately though, you are at fault to a certain degree, fair and square. However, the other drivers by having the right of way, does not give him the right to drive distracted and slam into you while not paying attention to the road and you still maneouvering and essentially stationary.
7
u/MakingMookSauce 12d ago
Who was distracted? the driver in their lane driving down the road or the driver in a parked car who pulled away from the curb into a lane which already had a moving vehicle. We all know the answer. Pulling into an active lane and getting hit is 100% the parked car s fault. Supposed to shoulder check and if there is a vehicle there which there obviously was then do not pull out into the lane way.
1
u/efc5463 12d ago
Op stated the other driver admitted to distracted driving by her screen on the spot. Yes, OP would still at fault for not checking despite not pulling out just yet, but all drivers shoukd avoid collisions in every ciscumstances and her distracted driving certainly did not help in this case and is not something that should go unchecked. And I tell you that with the experience of our vehicle having a sideview mirror blown by someone on the phone while driving in a fairly similar scenario.
-1
u/Total_Influence_3075 12d ago
ICBC are AH crooks. Even IF you were not at fault, they will find a reason to say your are.
19
u/Kooky_Celebration224 12d ago
Your car was in the lane because you put it there. You’re at fault. End of story. Move on.