June 25th, 2009
DBM Lawyers is proud to be a sponsor for the 10th Annual Richard Brodeur Celebrity Classic which is being held July 9, 2009 at the Meadow Gardens Golf and Country Club in Pitt Meadows.
Richard Brodeur started the tournament in 2000 as a way for the 1982 Canucks to help support their former coach Roger Neilson in his battle against Lukemia. Since then, proceeds from year to year have been donated to many worthwhile charities in our community. This year Camp Goodtimes, Tuberous Sclerosis Canada, BC Prader-Willi Syndrome Association and the Vancouver International Children’s Festival will benefit from the tournament. If you are interested in participating or helping to sponsor the event we encourage you to visit the tournament website by clicking on the link above.
Posted in Langley Personal Injury Law | No Comments »
June 25th, 2009
DBM lawyers Chris Bacon and Sharene Orstad joined Gordon Hilliker, Q.C. in representing 18 year old Jeffery Rimmer who suffered permanent irreversible brain damage when the car he was driving crashed into logs after hitting flood waters on the east side of the Salmon River Bridge in Langley Township. The case is significant because it confirms that townships and municipalities have a duty of care to motorists using the roadways and that the duty extends to taking reasonable steps to prevent injury to users of roads by reason of hazardous conditions like flooding due to storm events.
What Happened:
In the Rimmer case, the 18 year old plaintiff was driving home from work (a few minutes from his home) on a dark and stormy December night. To get home Mr. Rimmer had to travel over the Salmon River Bridge. Because of the heavy rains the river had burst its banks and there was between 16″ and 2 ft of water on the road on the east side of the bridge.
There was no overhead lighting on that stretch of road, no light from nearby buildings, no warning signs indicating the area was prone to periodic flooding nor were there any barricades to warn motorists the road was submerged. In addition, there is a slight dip on the east side of the bridge which hampers visibility. As a result, it was difficult to see the water until it was too late – a set of circumstances confirmed by other eye witnesses who had encountered the flooded road before the accident. When Mr. Rimmer crossed the bridge he hit the water, lost control of his car and crashed into a pile of logs that had been left (by the Township) on the south embankment of the river. As a result, he suffered a serious, permanent brain injury.
Langley refused to settle the case arguing that Mr. Rimmer was driving too fast (113 kmh) and therefore the accident was entirely his own fault. The Township also claimed it was unaware that the road had been a site of periodic and repeated flooding over the years. The Township also claimed that on the night of the accident crews were too busy responding to other emergencies to the conditions at the bridge. After investigation by the Plaintiff’s legal team, it was discovered that the Township’s Storm Contingency Patrol Map indicated the Township was required to patrol the Salmon River Bridge and close it if it flooded. Also, the Plaintiff’s engineering expert found that Langley had built an asphalt strip along the flood zone to protect the shoulder during “regular storm events” which indicated there had been knowledge of the potential for problems at that location. The judge also found that the Township was supposed to have had 4 patrol crews out that night but had sent 2 home before the accident which tended to cast doubt on Langley’s initial argument that they had been too busy to inspect the bridge. The evidence revealed that one crew was sent home and in fact none of the patrols had done any patrolling but had only responded to calls.
Langley’s position that Mr. Rimmer’s speed was the reason he crashed was based on evidence provided by the Township’s engineer. On cross examination it was found that the research he had used to calculate Mr. Rimmer’s speed was flawed so much so that if the figures had been added up correctly Mr. Rimmer would have had to have been travelling faster than his car was capable of going. As a result, the judge did not accept the engineer’s opinion on Rimmer’s speed.
While the court found that other drivers had driven through the flood zone safely, indicating that Mr. Rimmer had been driving too fast for the weather conditions, the judge also found that Langley had been negligent in applying their own storm contingency plan and failed to meet the duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent injury to users of the roads by reason of hazardous conditions.
The judge found that the Township was aware of the potential for flooding at the accident location in the event of a storm event. The court also concluded that no adequate system was in place for the carrying out of the Township’s operational requirements in a storm event and as such it failed in its duty of care to make the roadway reasonably safe and to take reasonable steps to prevent injury to users of the road by reason of the hazardous flooding conditions. In the end, the judge held the Township liable for 60% of Mr. Rimmer’s losses.
Read Rimmer v. Township of Langley, 2006 BCSC 703.
In Rimmer (Guardian ad litem of) v. Langley (Township) 2007 BCCA 350, Langley Township appealed the trial judge’s ruling that it was 60% responsible for Mr. Rimmer’s losses but failed to convince BC’s Court of Appeal that it should disturb the trial judge’s findings. To read the Court of Appeal’s full decision click on the case name.
Posted in Langley Personal Injury Law | No Comments »
January 22nd, 2009
We’re honoured to be recognized in the Georgia Straight’s Annual Best of Vancouver lists. Thank you to those who voted.
Posted in Langley Personal Injury Law | No Comments »
January 21st, 2009
When the issue of fault in a car accident comes up most people think about which driver was in the wrong. However, sometimes there are other parties not directly involved in the accident who bear some responsibility for an accident and the resulting injuries. Rimmer v. Township of Langley , where DBM acted for a Plaintiff who sued the Township of Langley for failing to properly deal with hazardous road conditions during a rain storm, is such a case.
In this case, DBM lawyers Chris Bacon and Sharene Orstad joined Gordon Hilliker, Q.C. in representing 18 year old Jeffery Rimmer who suffered permanent irreversible brain damage when his car he was crashed into logs after hitting flood waters on the east side of the Salmon River Bridge in Langley Township. The case is significant because it confirms that townships and municipalities have a duty of care to motorists using the roadways and that duty extends to taking reasonable steps to prevent injury to users of roads by reason of hazardous conditions like flooding due to storm events.
What Happened:
In the Rimmer case, Mr. Rimmer was driving home from work (a few minutes from his home) on a dark and stormy December night. To get home he had to travel over the Salmon River Bridge. Because of the heavy rains the river had burst its banks and there was between 16″ and 2 ft of water on the road on the east side of the bridge.
There was no overhead lighting on that stretch of road, no light from nearby buildings, no warning signs indicating the area was prone to periodic flooding nor were there any barricades to warn motorists the road was submerged. In addition, there is a slight dip on the east side of the bridge which hampers visibility. As a result, it was difficult to see the water until it was too late – a set of circumstances confirmed by other eye witnesses who had encountered the flooded road before the accident. When Mr. Rimmer crossed the bridge he hit the water, lost control of his car and crashed into a pile of logs that had been left (by the Township) on the south embankment of the river. As a result, he suffered a serious, permanent brain injury.
Langley refused to settle the case arguing that Mr. Rimmer was driving too fast (113 kmh) and therefore the accident was entirely his own fault. The Township also claimed it was unaware that the road had been a site of periodic and repeated flooding over the years. The Township also claimed that on the night of the accident crews were too busy responding to other emergencies to the conditions at the bridge. After investigation by the Plaintiff’s legal team, it was discovered that the Township’s Storm Contingency Patrol Map indicated the Township was required to patrol the Salmon River Bridge and close it if it flooded. Also, the Plaintiff’s engineering expert found that Langley had built an asphalt strip along the flood zone to protect the shoulder during “regular storm events” which indicated there had been knowledge of the potential for problems at that location. The judge also found that the Township was supposed to have had 4 patrol crews out that night but had sent 2 home before the accident which tended to cast doubt on Langley’s initial argument that they had been too busy to inspect the bridge. The evidence revealed that one crew was sent home and in fact none of the patrols had done any patrolling but had only responded to calls.
Langley’s position that Mr. Rimmer’s speed was the reason he crashed was based on evidence provided by the Township’s engineer. On cross examination it was found that the research he had used to calculate Mr. Rimmer’s speed was flawed so much so that if the figures had been added up correctly Mr. Rimmer would have had to have been travelling faster than his car was capable of going. As a result, the judge did not accept the engineer’s opinion on Rimmer’s speed.
While the court found that other drivers had driven through the flood zone safely, indicating that Mr. Rimmer had been driving too fast for the weather conditions, the judge also found that Langley had been negligent in applying their own storm contingency plan and failed to meet the duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent injury to users of the roads by reason of hazardous conditions.
The judge found that the Township was aware of the potential for flooding at the accident location in the event of a storm event. The court also concluded that no adequate system was in place for the carrying out of the Township’s operational requirements in a storm event and as such it failed in its duty of care to make the roadway reasonably safe and to take reasonable steps to prevent injury to users of the road by reason of the hazardous flooding conditions. In the end, the judge held the Township liable for 60% of Mr. Rimmer’s losses.
The Township appealed the decision (see: Rimmer (Guardian ad litem of) v. Langley (Township) 2007 BCCA 350) but failed to convince BC’s Court of Appeal that it should disturb the trial judge’s findings. The case was subsequently settled out of court.
This case highlights the importance of having legal counsel capable of launching a proper accident investigation. Sometimes the facts are more complicated than they first appear.
Posted in Langley Personal Injury Law | No Comments »
