Ontario Personal Injury Lawyers
Call 1-888-404-5167
Preszler Injury Lawyers

How do I Prove an Unknown “John Doe” Caused My Auto Accident?


There is a lot to take in following an auto accident. Oftentimes, the accident itself is a split-second occurrence, leaving other drivers and passengers unable to react in time. In the moments immediately following the collision, the victims may not stop to gather potentially useful information, including the identity of the other vehicle drivers involved.

This can sometimes make pursuing a claim for statutory accident benefits or a personal injury lawsuit more difficult. After all, Ontario judges and juries need to understand the facts, not some vague recollection of an accident that took place months–and more often than not, years–earlier. Unfortunately, when victims cannot provide sufficient detail, their case may never even make it to a jury.

Case Study: Passarelli v. The Personal Insurance Company

Consider this recent decision from an Ontario Superior Court of Justice judge. In Passarelli v. The Personal Insurance Company, an accident victim sought insurance benefits under the uninsured motorist provisions of his policy. The insurer rejected the claim and successfully convinced the judge to dismiss the plaintiff’s case on summary judgment–meaning the court felt it was unnecessary to submit the matter to a jury.

The Auto Accident and its Aftermath

Here is a brief overview of the facts. The plaintiff was driving his vehicle near the intersection of Finch Avenue West and Route 400 in Toronto (coincidentally, not far from the location of the Superior Court building). While driving, the plaintiff rear-ended a car belonging to a man named Morra, who is not a party to this lawsuit.

Talk With Our Legal Team



If you have any questions and would like to schedule a call with our legal team for a FREE no-obligation consultation, contact us now. During this call you can ask any questions as it relates to your accident and/or claim and we'll discuss your options and possible outcomes.

Regardless of where you're located in Ontario – we may be able to help you. Don't delay - call us. Our lines are open 24/7.

According to Morra, his vehicle had been stopped on Finch Avenue West for about 10 seconds when the plaintiff rear-ended him. Following the collision, Morra took his car to a nearby Collision Reporting Centre, which is a partnership between the Toronto Police Service and insurance companies that enable drivers to self-report motor vehicle accidents. Morra’s report to the Centre reiterated his car was stopped at the time of the accident. The plaintiff also appeared at the Collision Reporting Centre, where he told a police officer that “he could not stop in time to avoid hitting the car in front of him as he was following too closely.”

Later, the plaintiff filed a claim with his own insurance carrier, alleging an unknown “John Doe” had been driving a third vehicle at the time of this accident. According to the plaintiff, the John Doe “caused, or partially caused, the accident.” The John Doe was never identified, however, and there were no other witnesses who could corroborate the plaintiff’s story.

Judge Rejects Plaintiff’s Speculation in Trying to Shift Blame for Accident

Justice Edward M. Morgan of the Superior Court noted in his decision on the insurer’s summary judgment motion that there “is not a hard and fast rule that the following driver is always at fault in a rear end collision.” Nevertheless, the following driver–who was the plaintiff in this case–still has a duty under Ontario traffic regulations to “leave enough room to top in safety given the speed and circumstances.” Based on the available evidence, Justice Morgan concluded the plaintiff “did not meet that standard.”

Before the Court, the plaintiff presented evidence taken from the speedometer in his car just before the collision, which indicated he was travelling at 14 km/hr. The plaintiff maintained that this proved he “had slowed down” as he approached Morra’s car. The plaintiff further suggested that this supported his claim that an “unidentified third vehicle must have intervened to cause the accident.”

Justice Morgan said that was too far a leap to make. This was not a scenario in which the plaintiff could point to a “single rogue driver.” Rather, the plaintiff said there was a “traffic jam ahead of Mr. Morra’s car” and speculated that one of “many cars changing lanes” could have rear-ended Morra. That was purely speculative, Justice Morgan said, and did not qualify as an issue requiring a full trial.

The judge noted that under the Ontario Insurance Act, the burden of proof is always on the plaintiff requesting coverage under an uninsured or unidentified policy to actually show that he or she was “actually injured by an unidentified motorist.” Indeed, the plaintiff’s specific auto insurance policy said that any claim involving an unidentified vehicle “must be corroborated by other material evidence,” such as an “independent witness or physical evidence.” But the mere fact that an accident took place is not, in and of itself, corroborating evidence.

Call 1-888-608-2111 for available options or Book a Consultation

Furthermore, even if the plaintiff could present evidence a third-party “John Doe” caused the accident with Morra, the plaintiff also failed to present sufficient evidence of damages to establish his entitlement to an insurance payout under his policy. The plaintiff demanded the full amount of his uninsured motorist rider, which was over $200,000. While the law does not requiring corroborating evidence for claims under $200,000, it still demands “sufficient evidence to establish a triable issue,” which, again, the plaintiff failed to produce to the judge’s satisfaction.

Contact Preszler Injury Lawyers Ii You Have Been Injured in an Auto Accident and Need Help With an Insurance Claim

As you can observe from the decision in this case, it is enough to bring speculation or conjecture into Ontario Superior Court. Even if you are 100% convinced an unknown driver caused your auto accident, it is still your responsibility to offer the judge actual proof. This may not be obvious to you in the moments immediately following a collision, but it is something you need to understand going forward.

That is why one of your first steps following an accident should be to contact an Ontario personal injury lawyer. At Preszler Injury Lawyers, our lawyers are ready to talk through the specifics of your case and help you understand your options. Call us today to schedule a free, no-obligation consultation.

Source:

related videos


 

Car Accident Lawyers
 

Hit and Run Injury Claims
 

Statutory Accident Benefits & Car Accident Claims
 

Types of Damages in Car Accident Cases
 

What Are Statutory Accident Benefits?
 

What Insurance Cuts Mean For Drivers in Ontario
 

Who to Contact Following a Car Accident
 
Call us now at
1-800-JUSTICE
®

151 Eglinton Ave W,
Toronto, ON
M4R 1A6
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
4145 N Service Rd
Burlington, ON
L7L 4X6
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
2 County Ct Blvd #400,
Brampton, ON
L6W 3W8
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
105 Consumers Drive
Whitby, ON
L1N 1C4
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
92 Caplan Ave #121,
Barrie, ON
L4N 0Z7
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
380 Wellington St Tower B, 6th Floor,
London, ON
N6A 5B5
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
2233 Argentia Rd Suite 302,
East Tower Mississauga, ON
L5N 6A6
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
1 Hunter St E,
Hamilton, ON
L8N 3W1
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
459 George St N,
Peterborough, ON
K9H 3R9
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
22 Frederick Street,
Suite 700
Kitchener, ON N2H 6M6
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
352 Elgin Street,
Ottawa ON
K2P 1M8
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
10 Milner Business Ct #300,
Scarborough, ON
M1B 3C6
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
*consultation offices

DISCLAIMER: Please be advised that the header image and other images throughout this website may include both lawyer and non-lawyer/paralegal employees of Preszler Injury Lawyers and DPJP Professional Corporation and unrelated third parties. Our spokesperson John Fraser, or any other non-lawyer/paralegals in our marketing is not to be construed in any way as misleading to the public. Our marketing efforts are not intended to suggest qualitative superiority to other lawyers, paralegals or law firms in any way. Any questions regarding the usage of non-lawyers in our legal marketing or otherwise can be directed to our management team. Please also note that past results are not indicative of future results and that each case is unique. Please be advised that some of the content on this website may be out of date. None of the content is intended to act as legal advice as each situation is independent and unique and requires individual legal advice from a licensed lawyer or paralegal. For legal advice on your individual situation – we can provide legal guidance after you have contacted our firm and we have established a lawyer-client relationship contractually. Maximum contingency fee charged is 33%. Finally, our usage of awards and logos for awards does not suggest qualitative superiority to other lawyers, paralegals or law firms. All awards received from third party organizations have been done so through their own reasonable evaluative process and do not include any payment for these awards except for the use of the award logos for our marketing assets.