A British Columbia tribunal has upheld ICBC's finding that a driver was fully responsible for colliding with a 12-year-old e-scooter rider on a sidewalk.
In Heath v. ICBC, 2026 BCCRT 837, the Civil Resolution Tribunal on May 28, 2026 dismissed Richard Heath's challenge to ICBC's 100% responsibility assessment after his vehicle struck a child riding an electric kick scooter outside his Delta home.
The accident happened on April 19, 2024. Heath was leaving his circular driveway on 56th Street through the left exit when his vehicle was struck on the driver side, just above the wheel well. The 12-year-old e-scooter rider, accompanied by a younger sibling on a pedal bike, was travelling on the sidewalk. Heath told ICBC he did not see the children before the impact. A cedar hedge approximately 10 feet tall runs along the sidewalk on both sides of his driveway.
ICBC applied Motor Vehicle Act section 176, which requires drivers emerging from a driveway to stop before the sidewalk and yield to pedestrians on the sidewalk. The insurer assigned Heath full responsibility and upheld the finding on review.
Heath argued ICBC's decision was unreasonable. He said the e-scooter rider was not a pedestrian, was travelling too fast to stop, and was breaking the law by riding on the sidewalk. He pointed to Jaggs v. ICBC, 2023 BCCRT 1092, where a tribunal member found an e-scooter rider fully responsible for a similar collision.
Tribunal member Maria Montgomery rejected those arguments. Citing the British Columbia Court of Appeal's decision in Orr v. Graemond Holdings Ltd., 2022 BCCA 156, she found section 176 requires a driver to yield to sidewalk traffic, including an e-scooter. The fact that Heath's vehicle was struck while crossing the sidewalk indicated he had failed to yield.
Montgomery found no evidence the e-scooter rider was speeding. The presence of a younger sibling on a pedal bike suggested the e-scooter was not travelling at high speed. She rejected Heath's claim that the dent on his vehicle proved high speed, noting that determining e-scooter speed from vehicle damage requires expert evidence such as an accident reconstructionist's opinion, which Heath did not provide.
The hedges obscured the view of sidewalk traffic, Montgomery found, but Heath did not tell ICBC he had stopped before crossing the sidewalk or proceeded cautiously because of the hedges. She noted he could cut the hedges back or use the other driveway exit, which has better visibility.
On the rider's conduct, ICBC argued a minor riding an e-scooter is owed the same duty of care as a pedestrian. Citing Perilli v. Marlow, 2018 BCSC 495, Montgomery applied the standard of care expected of a 12-year-old. Riding on the sidewalk while accompanied by a younger sibling on a bike, she found, was not inconsistent with what a similarly aged person would reasonably have done. She also noted that Delta is not participating in the Motor Vehicle Act Electric Kick Scooter Pilot Project and does not have bylaws about e-scooters.
Montgomery concluded ICBC's responsibility determination was "logically justified and supported by the available evidence and the applicable law." She dismissed Heath's claim and ordered him to pay ICBC $25 in tribunal fees.
