Yes. But It takes a firm with Knowledge of the Law on both sides of the Border.
Lawyers For International Insurance Issues
Given the proximity of British Columbia and Washington State, and the ease of travel between them, many people who cross the border each day end up suffering injuries in a “foreign” country. Whether you are commuting to work, taking a short trip or even visiting a friend, the potential for a motor vehicle accident exists.
Unfortunately, the legal process for international accidents contains an additional layer of complexity. Throughout the history of our practice, the lawyers at Cross Border Law have endeavoured to become skilled at representing clients in both Canada and the United States. We understand the subtle legal nuances as well as the major administrative differences between the two countries.
Lawyers in Washington State, for example, might not understand how ICBC underinsured claims work. Additionally, there are significant strategic reasons for negotiating a settlement in one country before the other.
Car Accident Survivors and Supporters for Fair Auto Insurance in BC
Apr 30, 2018 — There is a protest against the ICBC/NDP caps being organized by our friends, the Road BC Coalition, happening this Saturday May 5, 1 p.m in Surrey, BC in front of NDP MLA Jinny Sims’ office. The protest will also be situated at the neighbouring “Bell Centre for the Performing Arts”. Please go!
Please stay on pedestrian areas, do not block traffic and do not interfere with businesses in the shopping plaza. We are not part of the ROAD BC coalition but strongly support their goals. The protest address is 14360 64th Ave, Surrey, BC.
We encourage everyone reading this to come by with signs opposing the NDP government caps plan especially the part which defines “mental illness” as a “minor injury”. Most mental illnesses are NOT minor injuries contrary to wording in the government’s planned law.
Please tell the NDP government that the labeling of mental illnesses in this way is UNACCEPTABLE in 2018 British Columbia!
In every civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the basic elements of negligence—duty, breach, causation and damages—and such proof is required by “a preponderance of the evidence”. This is defined as “more probable than not” or “more likely true than not true” or “on a 51% basis”. The reality is that a plaintiff must be prepared to show proof on a much more significant basis than 51%, as a juror is unlikely to award significant damages without substantial proof of injury and loss.
However, there are some cases that impose a different burden on a plaintiff—notably Products Liability cases in the US are governed by Strict Liability. In such cases, a plaintiff who was injured by a defective product must prove that the product was defective. Once the product is shown to have been manufactured defectively, the defendant manufacturer is liable, period. If, for example, a family is driving down the road and one of the tires on the vehicle suffers a sudden loss of air or “blowout”. The vehicle flips, passengers are ejected and all suffer serious personal injuries and losses. At trial, the injured parties must prove that the blown out tire was manufactured defectively, and once proven, their burden stops there. The manufacturer of the defective tire is then liable for any damages that are proven.
In BC, a plaintiff’s burden of proof for a defective products case is much more onerous. There a plaintiff must prove that the defendant manufacturer was negligent in the way it designed or manufactured the product. This is a significant burden and good reason why there are very few products cases that proceed to judgment in British Columbia.