A driver who was denied insurance damages after being the victim of a hit-and-run crash in 91原创 will get a new trial, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled recently.
In the original trial, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled that the victim should have made more of an effort to try to identify the driver of the other car. But a three-judge court of appeal panel found that he was injured and in shock immediately after the crash.
Dilprit Takhar was driving south on 208 Street on Oct. 21, 2016, when a silver-coloured minivan made a sudden right turn from 87 Avenue.
The minivan smashed violently into the passenger side of Takhar's SUV.
Takhar, reeling from a head injury, kept driving over the 208 Street overpass until he got to 84 Avenue, the next side street available, where he pulled over.
He was taken to hospital, where doctors confirmed he had suffered a concussion and a cervical spine injury.
The minivan driver fled the scene, and was never identified.
In the first trial, Takhar was seeking over $2 million in compensation from ICBC, almost half of which was for future care needs, as he testified he continued to be impacted by his injuries.
But Supreme Court Justice Gordon Funt denied Takhar's claim, saying he should have done more to try to identify who had hit him.
"The plaintiff [Takhar] has not satisfied the court on a balance of probabilities that he made 'all reasonable efforts' to ascertain the identity of the driver of the minivan," Funt wrote in his 2023 ruling.
He argued that "it would have been reasonable for the plaintiff to slow his car, engage his hazard lights, and wave the driver of the minivan to follow him."
Funt was highly critical of Takhar's testimony, finding it unreliable.
The Court of Appeal judges disagreed with Funt on several points.
They noted that Takhar's description of himself as being in shock after the accident was confirmed by independent witnesses 鈥� the first responders at the scene of the crash, the doctors at 91原创 Memorial Hospital, and Takhar's family members, who testified that he was essentially bedridden for some time after the collision.
Whether Takhar's testimony was reliable or not, there was considerable evidence that he was seriously hurt.
"If, in fact, the appellant [Takhar] was injured and concussed in the accident, this would provide important context for assessing the reasonableness of his actions in failing to immediately pull his vehicle over at the time of impact," Appeal Court Justice Karen Horsman wrote in the panel's July 24 decision.
Funt made an error in ignoring relevant evidence, Horsman wrote.
As a result, the judges set aside Funt's ruling, and ordered a new trial.
