Agony of Collision Explained
This morning I was doing some quick research on the law of “agony of collision” and turned to my favourite practice guide for a quick answer. Surprisingly I could not find a chapter discussing this topic so thought I would write my own summary.
In British Columbia our Courts have applied the “agony of collision” doctrine when discussing the issue of fault for a car crash when a motorist is faced with an imminent danger. In these circumstance it is unfair to judge the reactive steps a motorist takes with 20/20 hindsight. Instead the actions of the motorist need to be assessed with the reality of the “agony of collision” in mind.
This doctrine was summarized well in two BC cases I dug up today. The first is Gerbrandt v. Deleeuw where Mister Justice Hunter stated as follows:
10 An often quoted summary of the law concerning the agony of collision is found in an old text, Huddy on Automobiles, 7th Ed., page 471 and page 335 (this passage is relied upon by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in English v. North Star Oil Limited , (1941) 3 W.W.R. 622 (Sask. C.A.) and Reineke v. Weisgerber , (1974) 3 W.W.R. 97 (Sask. Q.B.)):
” Under circumstances of imminent danger an attempt to avoid a collision by turning one’s course instead of stopping the vehicle is not necessarily negligence. Or an attempt to stop when a turn would have been a more effective method of avoiding the collision is not necessarily negligence . . . one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger and is required to consider the best means that may be adopted to evade the impending danger is not guilty of negligence if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.”
11 In Gill v. C.P.R. , (1973) 4 W.W.R. 593 Mr. Justice Spence speaking for the court said the following:
” It is trite law that, faced with a sudden emergency the creation of which the driver is not responsible, he cannot be held to a standard of conduct which one sitting in the calmness of a Courtroom later might determine was the best course … “
The doctrine is traced back to even deeper roots by the BC Court of Appeal in Tubbs v. O’Donovan where the BC High Court cited cases dating back to the early 1900’s applying this doctrine. The Court held as follows:
Perfection is not demanded in emergent circumstances, as was well explained many years ago by this Court in Wood and Fraser v. Paget (1938), 53 B.C.R. 125 (C.A.), when it adopted this passage from Bywell Castle(1879), 4 P.D. 219 (C.A.):
For in my opinion the sound rule is, that a man in charge of a vessel is not to be held guilty of negligence, or as contributing to an accident, if in a sudden emergency caused by the default or negligence of another vessel, he does something which he might under the circumstances as known to him reasonably think proper; although those before whom the case comes for adjudication are, with a knowledge of all the facts, and with time to consider them, able to see that the course which he adopted was not in fact the best.
and this passage from Wallace v Bergius,  S.C. 205, at 210:
I think the driver of a motor car is in the same position as the master of a ship in this respect, that if at the last moment he reasonably judges that a collision is absolutely inevitable unless he does something, and if that something might avoid a collision, he acts perfectly reasonably in taking that course.