Ruling says the injured did not do enough to find unknown driver's identity
The British Columbia Supreme Court has ruled that an injured party failed to make all reasonable efforts to ascertain the identity of an unknown driver involved in an accident under s. 24(5)(a) of BC’s Insurance (Vehicle) Act, 1996.
In Eberhardt v Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2025 BCSC 1069, the plaintiff alleged the following facts relating to a single-vehicle collision that occurred at around 7:00 p.m. on Oct. 28, 2018. She said she was driving along the Trans-Canada Highway in the area of Ladysmith, BC, on a dark and rainy evening.
The plaintiff’s vehicle struck a large truck tire lying on the roadway. After the collision, she noticed a vehicle had parked on the highway’s right side. She could not say what the vehicle’s license plate number was or whether the tire belonged to that vehicle.
The plaintiff said she started experiencing symptoms of injury two or three days after the incident. She called ICBC and eventually hired counsel, who helped her publish classified newspaper advertisements searching for witnesses.
In April 2020, she brought a civil claim for negligence by an unknown vehicle owner or operator. She alleged that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) was liable under the hit-and-run provisions of s. 24 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.
ICBC, as a defendant, requested a dismissal under s. 24(5). ICBC said the court should summarily dismiss the plaintiff’s claim since she failed to make all reasonable efforts to identify the unknown owner or prove she could not ascertain that person’s identity.
Action dismissed
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the action against ICBC. The court said that, on the evening of the incident, the plaintiff could have tried to find the vehicle that had stopped or the tire she had hit so that she could take a picture or otherwise record potential clues on its origin.
However, the court found the plaintiff’s failure to take such steps reasonable in the circumstances. Specifically, the court noted that it had been late at the time, and she had been concerned about the well-being of her six-year-old son, who was sitting in the back seat.
Next, the court addressed the plaintiff’s efforts in the days following the incident. The court ruled that she failed to take the minimum steps, considering her personal circumstances at the time, or to pursue reasonable and available avenues of investigation.
The court noted that the plaintiff did not:
- return to the scene of the collision to check whether the tire was still there
- contact any RCMP detachments in the area to seek information about a tire resting on the road at the time of the incident
- ask the transportation ministry’s highway maintenance contractor if they had removed a tire from the road or had received any reports about it
- post messages on social media to solicit information
- set up signs at nearby residences and businesses
Based on ICBC’s records of its calls, the court found that the plaintiff did not express any intention to make a personal injury claim relating to an unidentified driver.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that ICBC breached its duty of utmost good faith as an insurer when it failed to advise her to find potential witnesses or file a police report. The court held that ICBC had no duty to impart such advice or investigate on a claimant’s behalf.
Regarding the classified ad, the court noted that it focused on the collision instead of the tire’s presence on the road and set the time of the incident at 6:00 p.m., rather than 7:00 p.m. as reported to ICBC or stated in the plaintiff’s discovery evidence.
