Quite often in ICBC claims or other claims involving icy conditions, not only will the owner and driver of the other car be named as Defendants, but so will road maintenance companies.
In Van Tent v. Abbotsford (City), the Plaintiff was a motorcyclist who was injured when riding through a construction zone. The accident occurred when he rode his motorcycle over the fog line before riding over a two inch drop off in the pavement, wherein he lost control and was injured. The Plaintiff was held to be 20% liable, however the Defendant was mostly liable for failing to adequately mark the uneven pavement. In upholding the trial judge’s interpretation of the proper standard of care to be applied, the British Columbia Court of Appeal commented that:
 As already noted, the trial judge held at para. 93 of her reasons that s. 138 of the Motor Vehicle Act and the Manual informed the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent contractor in the circumstances. (Although not specifically mentioned, s. 139 is of relevance as well.) She found in fact that the appellant contractor fell below this standard in a number of ways, beginning at para. 71:
 In this case, the standard of care is greatly informed, although not dictated, by the collection of uniform traffic control standards detailed in the Manual. By virtue of performing construction work on a provincial highway, the defendants were required, at a minimum, to abide by the principles and guidelines it contained. The applicable standards endorsed in the Manual accord with common sense and the conduct expected of a prudent contractor in the circumstances in relation to the task of ensuring the safety of the users of the road and work crews during times of construction and maintenance.
 In my view, the defendants failed to adhere to several of those minimal standards. With respect to many of them, Mr. Stewart variously seemed not to know of them or appreciate their application or the complexities of the planning work that was required of him in creating and implementing an appropriate traffic control plan.
 The errors identified by the appellants are findings of fact made by the trial judge. The appellants have not identified any palpable or overriding errors that would warrant intervention by this Court. Those findings of fact are amply supported by the evidence. I conclude that the trial judge did not err in describing the standard of care, or in concluding that it was breached by the appellants.