Advice on accident | GTAMotorcycle.com

Advice on accident

Julz

Julz

Well-known member
I was involved in a accident in a parking lot where I was on my bike and a car pulled a left turn on me quickly. Ended up with a broken collar bone and bruises. Dr. said I'd be out 4-6 weeks. Driver of the car was found at fault by cops but since it happened in a parking lot he couldn't charge him with anything because it's private property. Called my insurance and said they'll do their own investigation and they'll decide who's at fault and will not go by what the cop concluded which puzzles. At this point these fees are compounding. I still need to get my bike out of the pound ASAP because they charge an arm&leg but I don't even know if it's rideable. What legal recourse do I have here to recoup my loss financially. I'd be out of work for a while so there'll be a certain point where I get paid by a certain percentage. What if for some reason my insurance co (state farm) find it a 50/50 fault or worse find me at fault which I doubt, how can I challenge the decision. I know I'm getting a head of my self but I want to be prepared in case of the what ifs happens.

I should probably have my bike at the dealer when it get's looked at by insurance so they can just talk to them on how much the damage is instead of it being in my garage and the guy low balling me. Don't even want to know how much it is to tow it there, dunno if it's even rideable, (not me but a buddy ride it). Sorry just seems like I have so much $h!t to do it's frustrating. Should I contact a lawyer now or wait till later on? Any recommendations?
 
Someone turned left in a parking lot and you hit him? Is this correct?
 
meme said:
Someone turned left in a parking lot and you hit him? Is this correct?
Click to expand...
Yes I was going straight so was he on the opposite direction turned left all of a sudden I didn't have enough time or anywhere to go. Bike slid, I hit my head on the car and my shoulder hit probably his wheels which is why my collar bone is broken.
 
Write down everything you can remember now (it will help later).

I don't have any personal experience, but I would contact a lawyer sooner rather than later. If nothing else, they have a lot of experience and can provide guidance (ie. maybe medical exams are required within x days of accident, you don't want to miss the window) (there are older threads where people recommend personal injury attorneys).

Good luck, glad you were (mostly) able to walk away.
 
For your reference:

Q: Does the Highway Traffic Act apply to shopping mall parking lots? If someone is driving across the aisles in a parking lot, which seems illegal, and hits someone driving down the marked aisle, are they considered to be at fault?

A: Pete Karageorgos of the Insurance Bureau of Canada replies:


Police operate under the HTA, while insurers and adjusters will review incidents using the lens of the Insurance Act/policy and the Fault Determination Rules.

Although police may not lay charges for a parking lot/private property collision, the insurer will examine how the collision occurred to assess who was at fault.

Insurance fault determination rules do apply in parking lots. Generally, if both vehicles were moving, it’s 50:50. If the impacted auto was stationary, it’s 100 per cent on the other driver.

Source of above answer: http://www.wheels.ca/guides/are-shopping-mall-parking-lots-above-the-law/


Also, "Court of Appeal for Ontario states Highway Traffic Act applies to private property"
"[4] I agree with the position advanced by the appellant. I would hold that the obiter in Shah limiting the operation of the “entire HTA” to “highways” is wrong and should not be followed. Many provisions of the HTA are by their terms limited to “highways”. Other provisions, however, are not so limited. Nothing in the overall structure of the HTA or its purpose compels the reading of the word “highway” into sections in which it does not appear. Section 199 is one such section. I would hold that the reporting requirement in s. 199 generally applies even if the accident does not occur on a “highway” as defined in the HTA. "

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2013/2013ONCA0027.htm

At some point, police has to start charging people who break the HTA rules, even in private property. It is just a matter of time. Maybe they already started doing that.
 
@MarcosSantiago

I believe you maybe misinterpreting that court of appeal decision. If you read S.199 of the HTA it does not include the word 'highway' which is why the Court of Appeals ruled that S.199 also applies on private property. Basically the Court of Appeals is saying that if the specific section does include the word 'highway' then the offence does not have to take place there.

[40] In summary, my review of the HTA as a whole demonstrates that many of the duties created by various sections of the HTA that do not use the word “highway” cannot be limited to “highways”. Viewed from the perspective of the HTA as a whole, context contraindicates reading all sections of the HTA as applicable only to “highways”.​

Duty to report accident
199. (1) Every person in charge of a motor vehicle or street car who is directly or indirectly involved in an accident shall, if the accident results in personal injuries or in damage to property apparently exceeding an amount prescribed by regulation, report the accident forthwith to the nearest police officer and furnish him or her with the information concerning the accident as may be required by the officer under subsection (3). R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 199 (1); 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table.​

S.199 of the HTA does not apply in the OP's case, the only charge the other driver could get is Dangerous Driving under the Criminal Code. I don't know if the crown will pursue a conviction, and if the essential elements are present: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Offences/Dangerous_Operation_of_a_Motor_Vehicle

The OP most likely wants the other driver to be charged with Careless Driving or Fail to Yield, which doesn't apply on private property because those sections includes the words 'highway'.

Careless driving
130. Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years. 2009, c. 5, s. 41.​

Right of way at uncontrolled intersections
135. (1) This section applies where an intersection is not controlled by a stop or yield sign or a traffic control signal system. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 135 (1).
Right of way
(2) Every driver approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection that has entered it from an intersecting highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 135 (2).
Idem
(3) When two vehicles enter an intersection from intersecting highways at approximately the same time, the driver on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 135 (3).​

_______________________________________

Pete Karageorgos of the Insurance Bureau of Canada states that it's generally 50/50 for moving vehicles on private property. But if you have evidence to support that the other vehicle was turning left and is 100% at fault then you won't have a 50/50 scenario.

I believe the 50/50 would apply in a poor parking situation: a vehicle is backing out of their space blinded by vehicles on either side. You come along and don't see them back out... and consequently slam into them.
 
MarcosSantiago said:
For your reference:

Q: Does the Highway Traffic Act apply to shopping mall parking lots? If someone is driving across the aisles in a parking lot, which seems illegal, and hits someone driving down the marked aisle, are they considered to be at fault?

A: Pete Karageorgos of the Insurance Bureau of Canada replies:


Police operate under the HTA, while insurers and adjusters will review incidents using the lens of the Insurance Act/policy and the Fault Determination Rules.

Although police may not lay charges for a parking lot/private property collision, the insurer will examine how the collision occurred to assess who was at fault.

Insurance fault determination rules do apply in parking lots. Generally, if both vehicles were moving, it’s 50:50. If the impacted auto was stationary, it’s 100 per cent on the other driver.

Source of above answer: http://www.wheels.ca/guides/are-shopping-mall-parking-lots-above-the-law/
Click to expand...

I've been told the exact same rule by the TDMM rep after my accident, which was not in a parking lot btw.
 
Dude, you slid in a parking lot? How fast were you going? This will likely be brought up by your insurance if you told them that.
 
if there is physical injury (even if not permanent), contact a lawyer.

do NOT call Diamond, they're crooked.

contact the Personal Injury Alliance.
its a group of some of the tops personal injury firms in ontario (if not canada). One of the firms will take your case.

http://www.pialaw.ca/

if you have questions about picking a lawyer, pm me, i may be able to help
 
Under the rules of fault determination, based on your report of the incident, the other driver is 100% at fault. Some insurance companies like to drag their feet, delaying pay out, because every day that money is in their accounts makes them more money. I had an insurance company take 7 months to pay out, on a claim in which I stated I was 100% at fault.

If the company finds against you, for some reason, then your first step is to appeal the decision through the companies ombudsman. If that fails then your only recourse is to sue your insurer, which is a lose-lose proposition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom