A common misconception that can arise is that jaywalkers will always be found fully responsible for any collision with a vehicle. In fact, it can sometimes be the case in scenarios with respect to ICBC claims involving jaywalkers that there is an apportionment of liability.
In Khodadoost v. Wittkamper, the Plaintiff crossed the street outside of a crosswalk, two car lengths north of the intersection. As he crossed the road, he began walking at an angle towards the crosswalk. The Defendant, in a stopped position in the curb lane, began to proceed once the light turned green, and struck the pedestrian in the process of doing so. The Plaintiff brought an ICBC claim for damages for pain and suffering, out of pocket expenses, and cost of future care. Liability was in dispute. The Court found the Plaintiff to be 70% responsible for the accident, and the Defendant 30%.
 When the southbound traffic began to move forward, the defendant followed. The plaintiff at that time was adjacent to the front driver’s side corner of the defendant’s car. The defendant’s vehicle may have made a very slight contact with the plaintiff before the defendant initially applied his brakes. When he placed his foot on the brake pedal, however, his foot slid off the pedal allowing his vehicle to move forward, essentially in a second forward motion. At that time, there was contact between the plaintiff and the defendant’s vehicle, and the plaintiff fell or was knocked to the road.
 At the heart of the determination of liability is what the plaintiff’s movements were immediately before the impact.
 There is no question that the plaintiff began his crossing of McKay Avenue outside of the crosswalk. That fact is, however, of limited relevance. What is particularly important is the condition of the pedestrian and traffic control signals, and the plaintiff’s positioning relative to the crosswalk as he moved past the center point of the road and across the southbound lanes.
 I am satisfied on the evidence that by the time the plaintiff had begun to cross those southbound lanes, the traffic signal for southbound traffic was green. All of the evidence indicates that traffic generally, including the defendant, had begun to move. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant commented specifically on the condition of the traffic signal, but it is the only logical inference from the evidence as a whole.
 It is my conclusion that the plaintiff must bear the majority of the liability for the incident. I apportion liability 70 percent to the plaintiff and 30 percent to the defendant. An award of damages must be adjusted based on this division of liability.