Tel: 604-574-7431

Personal Injury Case Filing in Surrey

Have you or anyone from your family been injured in an accident? Feeling clueless about the entire case filing process? Contact MacMillan Tucker & Mackay for your personal injury cases in Surrey, BC. We have a team of lawyers who provide solutions and assistance for motor vehicle accidents or other personal injuries. From hit- and- run accidents to cases involving trucks, buses and bicycles, we take up cases involving pedestrians hurt by motor vehicles as well. Our lawyers help determine the extent of your injuries, provide compensation and initiate a claim against the person who injured you! 


Please read the articles below to learn more about injury and insurance law.

IT’S THE LAW – By Corey J. Bow

What would you do if you were the judge? Judges decide the facts based on evidence put before them, and then apply the law. Here is a fact pattern. How would you decide who was at fault? Fact patterns similar to this one are often presented in court and assessed by judges. Test your judgment!

You Can’t Go back on Your Word

Speedy Gonzalez was driving his car and going straight through an intersection. Lefty McNish was heading towards the same intersection in the opposite direction. She, unfortunately, decided to turn left right in front of Speedy. Speedy collided with Lefty’s car and he was injured. Somebody had filmed the accident with their dash cam and gave the video to Speedy. Speedy’s lawyer gave that video evidence to ICBC, who was handling the matter. Speedy’s case didn’t settle before the two-year limitation date so he had to start a lawsuit. In the lawsuit, Speedy claimed that Lefty was negligent for turning left right in front of him.


Because Lefty had insurance with ICBC, they hired a lawyer to defend the claim. As is normal in these situations, the defence lawyer filed a written response to the lawsuit. Because there is a higher onus on a left turning driver, the lawyer for ICBC admitted in the court papers that Lefty was at fault for the accident.

Sometime later in the litigation, the ICBC lawyer sent the dash cam evidence to an engineer. That engineer found that Speedy was speeding at the time of the accident. Upon finding out that Speedy may also have been negligent in the accident, Lefty’s lawyer applied to the court to have their previous admission of liability retracted.


If You Were the Judge, How Would You Decide? 

Once you have made an admission in a lawsuit, it is quite difficult to take it back. The defence lawyer cannot simply amend his pleadings, but has to apply to the court to get the court’s permission to remove that admission. The court has to consider a number of factors to allow a party to remove an admission. For example, if the admission was made hastily or without the facts known to the party; if removing the admission would prejudice the other party; or if there was delay in bringing the application. In this case, the court did not allow Lefty’s lawyer to remove the admission. The main reason for that was because ICBC already had the dash cam footage in their possession when the admission was made. In law, like in life, you have to be careful with what you admit.

Corey J. Bow is a lawyer who practices in Cloverdale with the firm MacMillan Tucker & Mackay at 5690 – 176A Street, Cloverdale (Surrey), B.C. At MacMillan Tucker & Mackay, lawyers are available to answer questions about wills and estates, ICBC claims, personal injury, professional negligence, family matters and other issues. If you require legal assistance, please call (604) 574-7431 to book an appointment.

IT’S THE LAW – By Cassandra Douma

What would you do if you were the Judge? Judges decide the facts based on evidence put before them, and then apply the law. Here is a fact pattern. How would you decide who was at fault? Fact patterns similar to this one are often presented in court and assessed by Judges. Test your judgment!

Don’t Let Anyone Drink and Drive!

Insured Ingrid and her friend Sloshed Steve went to a co-worker’s house for some drinks. They had arrived together in Insured Ingrid’s car, and Sloshed Steve had told them that he would drive it home at the end of the night. Insured Ingrid and Sloshed Steve had a number of drinks together as the evening progressed, and Insured Ingrid proceeded to become quite intoxicated.


Sloshed Steve drove them home in Insured Ingrid’s car at the end of the night. While on their way, Sloshed Steve ran a red light, and Insured Ingrid’s vehicle was t-boned. Insured Ingrid was injured in the crash and she sought compensation for her injuries. Her Insurer argued that she should have known that Sloshed Steve was too intoxicated to drive and because of that, she had breached the terms of her policy by permitting him to drive. Insured Ingrid brought an action to force her Insurer to compensate her for her injures.

If You Were the Judge, How Would You Decide? 

To avoid their liability under the insurance policy, the Insurer must establish that Insured Ingrid knew, or ought to have known, that Sloshed Steve was incapable of driving her vehicle. If Sloshed Steve was showing objective signs of intoxication to the point that it was reasonably foreseeable that he would be unable to execute a proper level of control, or if he told her that he was too intoxicated to drive, or if he had a lengthy drinking pattern which she knew about, the court might find that Insured Ingrid breached her policy and so the Insurer would not be required to compensate her. The Insurer could establish these points by any admissible evidence, such as the testimony of other witnesses who had seen Sloshed Steve at the co-worker’s house.

However, even if the court did not find that Insured Ingrid breached her policy, because she knew that Sloshed Steve had been drinking the court would likely still find that her letting him drive amounted to contributory negligence and her damages would be reduced. If Insured Ingrid ought to have been aware of Sloshed Steve’s level of intoxication, she should have known she would be at risk being a passenger.

Cassandra Douma is an Articled Student who practices in Cloverdale with the firm MacMillan Tucker & Mackay at 5690 – 176A Street, Cloverdale (Surrey), B.C. At MacMillan Tucker & Mackay, lawyers are available to answer questions about wills and estates, ICBC claims, personal injury, professional negligence, family matters and other issues. If you require legal assistance, please call (604) 574-7431 to book an appointment.

MacMillan Tucker & Mackay

5690 176A Street

Surrey, BC V3S 4H1


Tel: 604-574-7431

TF: 800-658-7974

E: inquiries@mactuc.com

Hours

Monday - Thursday 09:00 AM - 05:00 PM

Friday 09:00 AM - 04:30 PM

Service Area

Surrey, Langley, Delta, White Rock, Burnaby, Richmond and Vancouver

Stay connected

Send to a friend

Send the url of this page to a friend of yours

Copyright MacMillan Tucker & Mackay 2019 - Legal
Created by

Legal notice