Uber Drivers can soon get their own special insurance from one Canadian insurance company – Intact
A gentleman from Courtenay explained about the regular difficulty that he encountered when he used the two way left turn lanes in that city. Most recently, he was travelling northbound on Cliffe Avenue attempting a left turn into Tim Horton’s. A woman turned southbound out of the Husky just ahead of him into the two way left turn lane as well. They were now approaching each other head on.
Legally, this woman is required to leave the two way left turn lane by turning left once she has occupied it. The gentleman is entitled to expect that she will obey the law and will not interfere with his left turn. It’s a good thing that she used her right turn signal and he saw it. Waiting to turn left prevented a collision that would have occurred had he turned when she accelerated into the first through lane on her right.
Wrongly, many drivers see the relatively quiet two way left turn lane as a way to reduce the complication of crossing three lanes of traffic and occupying the first available lane for their intended direction of travel. Instead, they move into the turn lane, accelerate to the speed of surrounding traffic and then move right into the lane they should have entered in the first instance.
Turning left is one of the more dangerous moves that we make when we drive. When traffic is heavy it can be difficult to track and account for all of the drivers who are following the rules. The woman should not have left the Husky driveway if she could not comfortably reach the correct lane. Probably unwittingly, she made a left turn less safe for someone else when she did this.
Today’s guest post comes from B.C. injury claims lawyer Erik Magraken
If you own a Ferrari and really want to drive it but can’t because of another’s actions, how much is that worth? $15,000 according to reasons for judgement released today by the BC Supreme Court.
In today’s case (Miller v. Brian Ross Motorsports Corp.) the Plaintiff’s Ferrari was damaged while being serviced at the Defendant dealership. The Plaintiff sued for damages arguing he should be entitled to $80,000 for the period which he could not use the vehicle. The Court found the Defendant’s conduct did indeed wrongfully deprive the plaintiff of use of this vehicle for a period of approximately 9 months. In assessing damages at $15,000 Madam Justice Dardi provided the following reasons –
 In assessing the appropriate quantum of damages for the loss of use, I have considered the following factors:
- The plaintiff derives great pleasure from driving his Ferrari and he was deprived of driving it for many months including through the summer months of 2013.
- During the Material Period, the plaintiff had an alternative vehicle, the Acura, available for transportation purposes.
- Although the plaintiff endeavoured to drive his Ferrari as frequently as possible, he would not have driven it on a daily basis throughout the Material Period. On his own testimony, he did not drive the Ferrari in the rain, or for work purposes. The Ferrari was insured for “pleasure” and could only be utilized for work purposes a maximum of six days per month.
- The plaintiff travelled away from Vancouver for work and for pleasure during the Material Period.
- Although the plaintiff adduced evidence of a rental rate from Mr. Stirrat of the Vancouver Car Club for a substitute Ferrari, he did not take steps to rent such a vehicle. The defendant challenges the reliability of Mr. Stirrat’s evidence on the rental rate. The rate the plaintiff urges this court to apply is the advertised price and notably, Mr. Stirrat was unable to confirm if any vehicle had, in fact, been rented at that price. In addition, the advertised vehicle is not the same model or year as the Ferrari. Further, although the plaintiff calculated the annual rate by extrapolating the monthly rate, no evidence was provided regarding whether the price would differ for long term renters. Overall, I found the evidence regarding the advertised rental rates to be of limited assistance.
 The plaintiff points out that if he had rented a replacement Ferrari, he would have been entitled to special damages for incurring that cost. However the plain fact is that he did not rent a replacement vehicle. Here, the plaintiff’s claim is for general or non-pecuniary damages for loss of use. The doctrinal underpinnings related to general damages are distinct from special damages. Special damages are awarded to compensate a plaintiff for out-of-pocket expenses and generally are calculable monetary losses. In contrast, an award of general or non-pecuniary damages is intended to compensate the plaintiff for more intangible losses and is not a matter of precise arithmetical calculation.
 Finally, in assessing general damages, the court must, on a balanced consideration of the evidence, endeavour to tailor an award that is reasonable and fair as between the parties: Kates v. Hall, 53 B.C.L.R. (2d) 322 (C.A.) at 322; Nason v. Aubin (1958), 16 D.L.R. (2d) 309 (N.B.S.C.) at 314.
 On a balanced consideration of the relevant factors, I assess the plaintiff’s damages for loss of use of the Ferrari during the Material Period as $15,000.
The “Making Ontario Roads Safer Act”, or Bill 31, was approved in June & will come into effect Sept. 1
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Ten of the world’s biggest carmakers were sued over claims that keyless ignitions lacking an automatic shut-off endanger drivers and passengers with deadly carbon monoxide fumes.
Also named as defendants were Hyundai, including Kia; Nissan, including Infiniti; Toyota, including Lexus; and Volkswagen, including Bentley. The suit alleges the automakers have known for years about increased dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning when people mistakenly leave their keyless ignition vehicles running after they’ve left the auto, taking their key fobs with them. Now 10 auto makers in the United States have been hit with a lawsuit claiming the issue has resulted in 13 deaths due to what is said to be a “defect” with the vehicles.
They also accused the automakers of failing to install an cheap feature that would automatically turn off unattended engines after a period of time.
“Plaintiffs believed the automakers’ repeated promises that the affected vehicles were safe”, the complaint said. Notably, Ford and GM filed patents that included language about preventing carbon monoxide poisoning – but, according to the suit, though the two automakers “openly recognized the risky consequences associated with keyless fobs…” It also seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
BMW, Fiat Chrysler and Toyota declined to comment. Some older model vehicles with keyless ignitions aren’t equipped with these features, however, the lawsuit claims. Whitney Eichinger, a Ford spokeswoman, didn’t immediately return a call after normal business hours seeking comment.
Wednesday’s lawsuit was filed in the federal court in Los Angeles.
U.S. District Judge James Selna in July 2013 approved a US$1.6 billion settlement to resolve claims that Toyotas lost value because of that defect.
The case is Draeger v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, 15-CV-06491, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).