Skip to main content

Tag: liability

British Columbia Injury Claims and Collisions With Animals

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized. 96 Comments on British Columbia Injury Claims and Collisions With Animals


When the driver of a vehicle strikes an animal in the roadway and injures their passengers they can only successfully sue for damages (a tort claim) if it can be demonstrated that the driver did something careless.  Sometimes collisions with animals are unavoidable even with the most careful driving and in these cases injury lawsuits against drivers get dismissed.  Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dealing with this area of law.
In today’s case (Freidooni v. Freidooni) the Plaintiff was injured when the vehicle she was occupying struck a deer.  The Plaintiff was sitting in the passenger seat.  Her husband was driving.  They were travelling in the left of two westbound lanes on a highway.  The speed limit was 110 kmph but the defendant was driving, in cruise control, at 130 kmph.   To the right of the highway was an ‘open field with no trees or shrubs that would preclude an individual from seeing animals next to the travelled protiomn of (the) Highway“,   There was vegetation to the left of the highway that “could have impeded the defendant’s view of deer in that areal“.
There were no vehicles which limited the driver’s view.  A deer entered the Defendant’s lane of travel and the collision occurred.  Neither he nor the Plaintiff saw the deer before impact.  The Defendant said he was not at fault in these circumstances arguing that “it cannot be determined with any certainty as to whether the deer entered the westbound lanes of Highway No. 16 from the open area to the north, that being the open field to the defendant’s right, or whether it emerged from the vegetation to the defendant’s left“.
Mr. Justice Shabbits disagreed with the Defendant and found him entirely at fault.  In coming to this conclusion he noted as follows:

[23] The defendant submits that it has not been shown that the deer did not emerge from cover in the median of the roadway, and that since neither the plaintiff nor the defendant saw the deer before the collision, it cannot be inferred that the defendant could have seen the deer in sufficient time to avoid the impact.

[24] The evidence, however, is unequivocal in that the deer approached the defendant’s vehicle from its right.  Even if it had initially emerged from the median of the roadway, it must have crossed entirely over the lane in which the defendant was driving before turning and re-entering the defendant’s lane of travel.  Alternatively, the deer emerged from the open field to the right of the highway.  I am of the opinion that in either case, the defendant’s failure to see the deer was negligent.  The only explanation as to why he did not see the deer is that he was not paying attention to the roadway.  The defendant was on cruise control on a wide roadway in perfect conditions with no other traffic about.  By his own account, he was drinking coffee and listening to music.  In my opinion, the reason why he did not see the deer on the roadway was that he was not paying attention.  He was not paying attention because he did not expect anything to be there.

[25] The accident occurred in an area where there is wildlife.  The defendant knew that.

[26] In White v. Webster, Esson J.A. says that the question comes down to this.  He says it was a virtually unavoidable inference that there was some absence of look out on the part of the driver.  I am of the same opinion in this case.  The defendant was not paying attention.  He did not see the deer when he should have seen it.  He took no evasive action to avoid the impact when he should have been able to do that.

[27] I find that the defendant was negligent.  He is liable for the accident.

When the driver of a vehicle injures passengers by colliding with an animal in British Columbia the passengers should be cautious before giving a statement to the driver’s insurance company addressing the issue of fault.   As I’ve previously written, if any issues of carelessness are glossed over in the statement it will certainly be used against you if you later seek to advance a tort claim for compensation for your injuries.

Agony of Collision Explained

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized. 109 Comments on 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, [1915] 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.

Keeping Damaging Evidence Out; Bias and Necessity

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized. 54 Comments on Keeping Damaging Evidence Out; Bias and Necessity


An imporant skill of a trial lawyer is being able to persuade the Court, in appropriate circumstances, to exclude expert opinion evidence that is damaging to your client’s case.  Two of the many objections that can be raised against opposing expert evidence are bias and lack of necessity.   Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dealing with these areas of the law.
In today’s case (Beazley v. Suzuki Motor Corporation) the Plaintiff was injured in a 1994 roll-over car crash.  The Plaintiff claimed that the design of the vehicle involved was defective and sued various parties including GMC.  GMC argued that the vehicle was not negligently designed and further that the Plaintiff was the author of her own misfortune for failing to wear her seatbelt.
In support of their case the Defendants obtained two expert reports.  The first was a report from an engineer (who was an employee of the Defendant GMC) who provided opinions about the handling, stability and rollover characteristics of the vehicle in question and whether the vehicle was defective.  The second was the report of a statistician who addressed the injury risk to belted and unbelted occupants in rollover accidents.
The Plaintiff applied to exclude these reports from evidence.  They argued that the engineer’s employment relationship with the Defendant at the very least created a reasonable apprehension of bias that should disqualify him from acting as an expert.  With respect to the statistician’s report the Plaintiffs argued that this evidence was not helpful for the Court.
Mr. Justice Goepel rejected the Plaintiff’s submissions with respect to bias but did agree with the submissions with respect to the statistical evidence.  In coming to these conclusions Mr. Justice Goepel provided the following useful summaries of these areas of law:

  • BIAS

[20] Canadian courts appear to have taken different positions on the issue of whether an expert witness’ bias or perceived bias will disqualify him or her from giving evidence at trial. Some courts have held that for expert evidence to be admissible, the expert must be seen to be absolutely neutral and objective. Other courts have concluded that a lack of objectivity, neutrality and independence are matters that only impact the weight to be afforded that expert. Romilly J. in United City Properties Ltd. v. Tong, 2010 BCSC 111 at paras. 35-68, has exhaustively reviewed the jurisprudence.

[21] The cases are not easily reconciled. Where there is a personal relationship between the proposed expert and the party, where the expert has been personally involved in the subject matter of the litigation or where the expert has a personal interest in the outcome, the expert has not been allowed to testify. Examples of such cases are Fellowes, McNeil v. Kansa General International Insurance Co. (1998), 40 O.R. (3d) 456 (Gen. Div.); Royal Trust Corporation of Canada v. Fisherman (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 187 (Sup. Ct. J.);  Bank of Montreal v. Citak, [2001] O.J. No. 1096 (Sup. Ct. J.); and Kirby Lowbed Services Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2003 BCSC 617. In cases where the relationship between the expert and the party is more institutional in nature, the evidence has been admitted subject to weight. Examples of such cases are R. v. Klassen, 2003 MBQB 253 and R. v. Inco Ltd.(2006), 80 O.R. (3d) 594 (Sup. Ct. J.).

  • NECESSITY

[28] Expert opinion evidence is admissible only where a judge or jury are unable, due to the technical nature of the facts, to draw appropriate inferences. The defendants seek to call Ms. Padmanapan’s statistical evidence in order to establish a causal connection between a failure to wear a seatbelt in the course of a rollover accident and increased injuries. In certain circumstances statistical evidence can be helpful in determining causation:  Laferrière v. Lawson, [1991] 1 S. C.R. 541.

[29] It has been long recognized in British Columbia that a party who fails to use an available seatbelt and sustains injuries more severe than if the seatbelt had been worn will be found to be contributory negligent: Yuan et al. v. Farstad (1967), 66 D.L.R. (2d) 295 (B.C.S.C.); Gagnon v. Beaulieu, [1977] 1 W.W.R. 702 (B.C.S.C.).

[30] While there appears to have been statistical evidence led in Yuan and in Gagnon, subsequent cases have held that such evidence is not necessary. In Lakhani (Guardian ad litem of) v. Samson, [1982] B.C.J. No. 397 (S.C.) McEachern C.J.S.C. (as he then was) noted at para. 3:

I reject the suggestion that engineering evidence is required in these cases. The court is not required to leave its common sense in the hall outside the courtroom, and the evidence is clear that upon impact in both cases the Plaintiff’s upper body was flung or thrown forward striking the dashboard or the steering wheel. And common sense tells me that the restraint of a shoulder harness would have prevented that, and therefore some of the injury from having occurred.

[31] To succeed on the seatbelt defence, the onus will be on the defendants to establish upon a balance of probabilities that the use of a functioning seatbelt would have avoided, or minimized Ms. Spehar’s injuries:  Harrison v. Brown, [1987] 1 W.W.R. 212 (B.C.S.C.); Terracciano (Guardian ad litem of) v. Etheridge (1997), 33 B.C.L.R. (3d) 328 (S.C.).

[32] The statistical evidence to be led from Ms. Padmanapan is, in my opinion, not necessary and will not assist me as trier of fact in determining the issue of contributory negligence. If the evidence is not necessary, it does not meet the test of admissibility.

Uncontrolled Intersection Crashes, Who's At Fault?

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized. 49 Comments on Uncontrolled Intersection Crashes, Who's At Fault?


When two vehicles enter an uncontrolled intersection at approximately the same time and a collision occurs, how do you determine who’s at fault?  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, discussing this area of the law.
In today’s case (Vagramov v. Zipursky) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2004 car crash in Vancouver, BC.  The Plaintiff entered an uncontrolled intersection and collided with the Defendant’s vehicle which was attempting to cross the intersection at the same time.  Mr. Justice Gaul found that the Defendant was 100% responsible for the collision.  In doing so the Court provided the following useful summary of some of the legal principles that come into play in BC uncontrolled intersection crash lawsuits:

[129] The Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318 [MVA], governs the manner in which automobiles are driven on the roadways of our province. Section 144 of the MVA deals with the issue of careless driving, stating:

(1) A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway

(a) without due care and attention,

(b) without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, or

(c) at a speed that is excessive relative to the road, traffic, visibility or weather conditions.

[130] Section 173(1) of the MVA sets out the statutory rules of the road for vehicles that approach an uncontrolled intersection of the nature present in the case at bar.  That section provides:

Except as provided in section 175, if 2 vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time and there are no yield signs, the driver of a vehicle must yield the right of way to the vehicle that is on the right of the vehicle that he or she is driving.

[131]     The law relating to the duties of motorists as they approach uncontrolled intersections was set out in the seminal case of Walker v. Brownlee, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 450 (S.C.C.) [Brownlee].  The following observations of  Mr. Justice Cartwright, at 461, are apposite to the case at bar:

While the decision of every motor vehicle collision case must depend on its particular facts, I am of the opinion that when A, the driver in the servient position, proceeds through an intersection in complete disregard of his statutory duty to yield the right-of-way and a collision results, if he seeks to cast any portion of the blame upon B, the driver having the right-of-way, A must establish that after B became aware, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have become aware, of A’s disregard of the law B had in fact sufficient opportunity to avoid the accident of which a reasonably careful and skilful driver would have availed himself; and I do not think that in such circumstances any doubts should be resolved in favour of A, whose unlawful conduct was fons et origo mali.

[132]     Another oft-cited case in the area of the duty of servient drivers is the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision in Scheving v. Scott (1960), 24 D.L.R. (2d) 354 (Man. C.A.) [Scheving].  In his written reasons for a unanimous court, Mr. Justice Schultz articulates the appropriate principles to follow in cases such as the one presently before the court, at 358-359:

I think it fair to infer that this provision [the section of the Manitoba Highway Traffic Act that is similar to s. 175(1) of the BC Motor Vehicle Act] was made for the purpose of controlling automobile traffic, the speed of which makes impractical and ineffective a rule giving priority to whichever vehicle first reaches an open intersection. It need hardly be emphasized that inevitably there is confusion and great danger inherent in races to get to such an intersection, underlining the necessity for the present right-of-way rule. The word “approximately” as used in the above subsection means “about” or “nearly” and is the direct opposite of “exactly” or “precisely”. Therefore a vehicle approaches an intersection “at approximately the same time” as another vehicle if it approaches slightly before or slightly after such vehicle. Because the vehicle from the left reaches the intersection first — momentarily or a fraction of a moment ahead of the vehicle from the right– it cannot be said that the vehicle from the right has not approached it at “approximately” the same time.

What may be referred to as the old rule — that the car first reaching the intersection has the right-of-way — may properly be applied under certain circumstances. Thus, When the vehicle on the left reaches an open intersection substantially in advance of the vehicle on the right, i.e., where the vehicle on the right is at such a distance and travelling at such a speed that there is no reasonable danger–no apparent danger–of collision to be apprehended if the driver on the left proceeds into the intersection, then, under such circumstances, the driver on the left can with safety and with reason proceed into the intersection. However, it is obvious that under such circumstances, there being no question of precedence involved, there is no question of right-of-way involved either.

Prior entry into an intersection does not mean priority by a matter of a few feet or by a fraction of a second ahead of another vehicle; it means entry into an intersection with the opportunity of clearing it without obstructing the path of another vehicle under normal circumstances. “Who hit whom” is not the test.  The driver on the left, even though he may reach the intersection first, must yield the right-of-way to the driver on the right where they approach the intersection so nearly at the same time that there would be imminent hazard of collision if both continue the same course at the same speed.

Be Nice, Clear Your Ice…Fault for Slip and Fall Accidents

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Ankle Injury Cases, Occupier's liability claims. 108 Comments on Be Nice, Clear Your Ice…Fault for Slip and Fall Accidents


When I was growing up in Toronto I remember public service commercials often being played in the wintertime with the slogan “Be Nice, Clear Your Ice“.  Due to the temperate climate of Victoria, BC I have not heard a similar public service announcement for years.  That being said, regardless of where in Canada you live if you are responsible for a roadway/driveway/sidewalk/parking-lot that is covered in ice/snow reasonable steps should be taken to remove it.  Not only is removing it from your property the sensible thing to do, failing to do so can lead to a successful lawsuit and reasons for judgement were released by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating this.
In today’s case (O’Leary v. Rupert) the Plaintiff rented a basement suite in the Defendants home.  When returning from work one day the Plaintiff parked her car in the driveway and attempted to walk up the driveway to the stairs of her basement suite.  It was dark outside and none of the lights were on.  Before reaching the stairs the Plaintiff slipped and fell.   The Plaintiff sued for damages and succeeded.  In finding the Defendants liable Mr. Justice Voith found that they did not take reasonable steps to keep the driveway clear of hazards.  Specifically the Court summarized and applied the law as follows:

[38] The obligation of the Ruperts under the Tenancy Agreement was to “maintain the residential property in a reasonable state of …. decoration and repair.” Conversely, the obligation of Ms. O’Leary under s. 10 of the Tenancy Agreement was to “maintain reasonable health, cleanliness and sanitary standards.” In saying this, I recognize that as a matter of practice Mrs. O’Leary swept and shovelled the stairs and pathway leading to her suite.

[39] Second, as I have said, it is common ground that the Ruperts maintained and shovelled the whole of their driveway without ever suggesting to Mrs. O’Leary that this obligation properly fell to her. Liability may be imposed on a party who has voluntarily undertaken to do something they were not otherwise obligated to do: see Goodwin v. Goodwin, 2007 BCCA 81, 64 B.C.L.R. (4th) 280, at para. 26. Where that voluntary task is performed negligently and causes foreseeable harm to a plaintiff, liability may arise. Once the Ruperts undertook to maintain and shovel the whole of their driveway, regardless of whether they were under a legal obligation to do so, they had a duty not to perform this task negligently.

Analysis

[40] In MacLeod, Mr. Justice Burnyeat listed a series of factors, and the legal authorities where they are referred to, that are relevant in considering whether an occupier has fulfilled the duty imposed by s. 3 of the OLA. These factors include “whether an unusual danger was present, whether a warning had been provided to the plaintiff, the ease or difficulty and the expense with which the unusual danger could have been remedied, and any prior record of safe usage of the premises by others or by the plaintiff.”

[41] In this case, the application of most of these factors, together with the factors I have referred to earlier that emanate from Zavaglia, support the conclusion that the defendants breached the duty of care they owed to the plaintiff. The driveway of the Rupert home was sloped. I have found that it was routinely slippery and that it was icy on the night of January 12, 2007. It was dark on that evening and it was routinely unlit. These factors, in combination, gave rise to a situation that was unsafe or hazardous. In addition, the defendants knew that Mrs. O’Leary was required to cross over parts of the driveway, after exiting her car, to access her suite. Her use of the areas in question and the hazards it presented were thus foreseeable.

[42] In saying this, I recognize that we live in a relatively northern climate and that our winter weather conditions often create an environment that is inherently precarious. In Brown v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 420 at p. 439, the court said “Ice is a natural hazard of Canadian winters. It can form quickly and unexpectedly. Although it is an expected hazard it is one that can never be completely prevented.”

[43] Still further, I accept that the standard or test is one of “reasonableness and not perfection”: Fournier v. Grebenc, 2003 NBQB 221, [2003] N.B.R. (2d) (Supp.) No. 28 at para. 31. Finally, I recognize that this case deals with a residential home rather than an apartment building, as in Neilson v. Bear, [1999] B.C.J. No. 86 (S.C.), or a shopping centre, as in Murphy v. Interprovincial Shopping Centres Ltd., 2004 NLSCTD 210, 241 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 316, or a parking lot, as in Parmar v. Imperial Parking Ltd., [1977] B.C.J. No. 486 (S.C.), where the standards and procedures established by the landlord in response to winter conditions are designed to accommodate greater volumes of personal traffic. Accordingly, they are likely to be more rigorous or exacting.

[44] Nevertheless, the conditions that existed at the Rupert home were unnecessarily unsafe. I say unnecessarily unsafe because with little effort and at modest expense the conditions on the driveway could have been much improved. The simple installation of lighting that worked either on a timer or on a motion detector would have provided Mrs. O’Leary with the illumination necessary to better see where she was walking. Both devices are inexpensive. Both would have addressed the inconsistency with which the Ruperts turned on their outside lights or the occasions where, as in the case of the evening when Mrs. O’Leary fell, they had not yet arrived home from work to turn on the lights.

[45] Similarly, the use of salt or some other traction agent would have addressed the icy condition of the driveway. Though the Ruperts were diligent about shovelling their driveway, that step, without more, was not enough. Once again this step would have been relatively inexpensive and would not have been time consuming.

[46] I am also satisfied that the failure of the defendants to take these measures to address the icy and precarious condition of the driveway caused Mrs. O’Leary to fall.

[47] It is noteworthy that the Ruperts have, since Mrs. O’Leary’s accident, both taped the switch for the outside lights open and begun to apply salt to their driveway following a snowfall. It is clear that post-accident conduct cannot be viewed as an admission of negligence: Anderson v. Maple Ridge (District) (1992), 71 B.C.L.R. (2d) 68, 17 B.C.A.C. 172 (C.A.) at p. 75. Nevertheless, in Anderson, Wood J.A., as he then was, concluded that moving a stop sign after an accident was relevant to the question of whether it was difficult to see prior to the accident. Here the steps taken by the defendants post-accident are relevant to whether the driveway was dark and whether it remained slippery or icy after being shovelled.

[48] Similarly, post-accident conduct can be used as an indication of the ease with which a risk might have been avoided: Niblock v. Pac. Nat .Exhibition. (1981), 30 B.C.L.R. 20 (S.C.) at p. 25.

Mr. Justice Voith awarded the Plaintiff $25,000 for non-pecuniary damages.  Her most serious injury was a “second degree sprain of her ankle” which continued to impede the Plaintiff in some recreational activities some two years later.  There are not too many cases out there dealing with ankle sprains from the BC Supreme Court and this precedent may prove useful for others with similar injuries.

Slip and Fall Accidents in BC – What Does it Take For a Successful Lawsuit?

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Occupier's liability claims, Uncategorized. 128 Comments on Slip and Fall Accidents in BC – What Does it Take For a Successful Lawsuit?


When you slip and fall and get injured on someone else’s property are you entitled to compensation?  The answer is not necessarily.
Injury in a slip and fall accident is only half of the equation.   The other half is fault.  The ‘occupier‘ of the property (or another defendant who owes you a duty of care) needs to be at fault for the slip and fall otherwise no successful claim for compensation can be brought.  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, dealing with this area of the law.
In today’s case (Schray v. Jim Pattison Industries Ltd.) the Plaintiff fell (apparently on water) at a Save on Foods Grocery Store which was owned and operated by the Defendant.  The Plaintiff sued for her injuries alleging that the Defendant was at fault.  The Defendant brought a motion under Rule 18-A of the BC Supreme Court Rules to dismiss the case.  Madam Justice Arnold-Bailey denied the Defendant’s motion finding that the case was not suitable for summary dismissal.  Before reaching this conclusion, however, the Court summarized some of the legal principles behind a successful slip and fall lawsuit.   I reproduce these here for your convenience:

[21]        I agree that the prior summary trial judge set out the correct law in the previous application at paras. 5-10, as follows:

[5]        The duties of an occupier are set out in s. 3 of the Occupier’s Liability Act:

3(1)      An occupier of premises owes a duty to take that care that in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that a person, and the person’s property, on the premises, and property on the premises of a person, whether or not that person personally enters on the premises, will be reasonably safe in using the premises.

(2)        The duty of care referred to in subsection (1) applies in relation to the

(a)      condition of the premises,

(b)      activities on the premises, or

(c)      conduct of third parties on the premises.

[6]        The Act does not create a presumption of negligence against an occupier whenever a person is injured on the premises.  To establish liability, a plaintiff must point to “some act (or some failure to act) on the part of the occupier which caused the [plaintiff’s] injury”: Bauman v. Stein (1991), 78 D.L.R. (4th) 118 at 127 (B.C.C.A.).

[7]        A similar test applies under the common law.

[8]        An occupier’s duty of care does not require the occupier to remove every possibility of danger.  The test is one of reasonableness, not perfection.  Thus, an occupier may avoid liability if it establishes that it had in place a reasonable system of inspection:  Carlson v. Canada Safeway Ltd. (1983), 47 B.C.L.R. 252 (C.A.).

[9]        The plaintiff also bears the burden of proving that the hazard in question caused the injury: Keraiff v. Grunerud (1990), 43 B.C.L.R. (2d) 228, 67 D.L.R. (4th) 475 (C.A.).

[10]      An occupier’s duty under the Act in relation to slips and falls in grocery stores was described as follows by Trainor J. in Rees v. B.C. Place (25 November 1986), Vancouver C850843 (B.C.S.C.) (quoted with approval by Hutcheon J.A. in Coulson v. Canada Safeway Ltd. (1988), 32 B.C.L.R. (2d) 212 at 214, [1989] 2 W.W.R. 264 (C.A.)):

The proceedings are brought under the Occupier’s Liability Act and that Act provides that an occupier has a duty to take that care that is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that a person, in using the premises, will be reasonably safe.

The first requirement to satisfy that obligation is to take the kind of steps that were taken by the Defendants here to put into place a system to safeguard against dangerous substances being allowed to remain on the surface of the concourse. And then secondly to be sure that there was compliance by the people who were carrying out that responsibility with the system in place.

The bottom line is that the issue of fault is key.  When considering whether to sue for a slip and fall injury thought should be put to the issue of what the defendant did wrong to cause the incident or should have done to prevent it.

In my continued efforts to cross-reference the current BC Rules of Court with the soon to be in force New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules I will point out that Rule 18-A is kept intact under the new Rules and is reproduced almost identically at Rule 9-7 “Summary Trial“.

Driver Found 100% Liable for Accident Caused During Careless U-Turn

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized. 133 Comments on Driver Found 100133 Liable for Accident Caused During Careless U-Turn


Reasons for judgement were released today by Mr. Justice Smith of the BC Supreme Court considering the issue of fault in a collision between a pick-up truck and a motorcycle.
In today’s case (Dhah v. Harris) the Plaintiff was driving his motorcycle northbound on River Road in Delta, BC.  As he was coming into the second turn of an ‘s-curve’ a pick up truck was making a U-Turn from the Southbound lane into the Northbound lane.  Approaching this truck the motorcyclist hit his brakes ‘pretty hard’, dropped his bike and then slid into the side of the pickup truck.
The driver of the pick up truck did not see the Plaintiff and only realized he was there upon impact.  Similarly the motorcyclist did not appreciate that the pick up truck was there until it was too late to avoid the collision.  There was no evidence that the motorcyclist was speeding.
Both driver’s claimed the other was at fault.  After a 3 day trial Mr. Justice Smith found the pick-up truck driver 100% at fault.  In coming to this conclusion he provided the following summary and application of the law relating to U-Turn collisions:

[22] I find it highly unlikely that the defendant was moving at the extremely slow speed that that would imply. I find it more likely that the defendant was focussed on the tightness of the turn and the need to avoid the ditch across the road and that he failed to pay sufficient attention to situation to his right. Either he allowed more time than he now recalls to elapse between looking right and beginning his turn or he simply failed to notice the plaintiff who was there to be seen.

[23] Even if the defendant was turning at an extremely slow speed and the plaintiff was not there to be seen when the defendant began his turn, the plaintiff obviously would have come into view at some point before the collision. On the defendant’s own evidence, he did not look to his right again before he crossed the double solid centre line.

[24] It is a matter of common knowledge that roads are typically marked with a double solid line at locations where drivers will have reduced visibility of the road ahead. Sections 155 (1)(a) and 156 of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318, read as follows:

155  (1) Despite anything in this Part, if a highway is marked with

(a) a solid double line, the driver of a vehicle must drive it to the right of the line only,

…

156  If the driver of a vehicle is causing the vehicle to enter or leave a highway and the driver has ascertained that he or she might do so with safety and does so without unreasonably affecting the travel of another vehicle, the provisions of sections 151 and 155 are suspended with respect to the driver while the vehicle is entering or leaving the highway.

[25] Counsel for the defendant argues that the defendant reasonably concluded that he could safely enter the roadway and was leaving enough distance for oncoming vehicles to adjust to his presence. He argues that the effect of s. 156, in those circumstances, is that once the defendant entered the roadway, other drivers including the plaintiff were required to “accommodate” his position. In effect, counsel argues that if the defendant determined on reasonable grounds that he could safely cross the centre line, he acquired the right of way from the moment he entered the roadway.

[26] I cannot accept that submission. Section 155(1)(a), standing alone, contains an outright prohibition against crossing a double solid line. Section 156 does no more than provide limited exceptions to that absolute prohibition. It does not, in my view, diminish the duty to proceed with caution and it does not remove the right of way from another driver who is approaching in his or her proper lane.

[27] In any event, the question of whether or not the defendant was in violation of the statutory provision is not determinative. The question is whether the defendant kept a proper lookout and took appropriate care in the circumstances:  Dickie Estate v. Dickie and De Sousa (1991), 5 B.C.A.C. 37 (C.A.).

[28] In Dickie, the plaintiff was in the process of making a u-turn across a double solid line when he was struck by the defendant who was approaching at an excessively high speed. The Court of Appeal said at para. 12:

[The plaintiff] was engaging in a manoeuvre that was fraught with danger. He placed himself and the oncoming drivers in a position of risk. That being so, in my opinion, the law required of him a very high degree of care which would manifest itself in a sharp lookout before he crossed over the solid double line into the northbound lanes on the causeway. There was nothing to prohibit Dickie from seeing the oncoming De Sousa vehicle before his vehicle entered the northbound lanes of travel.

[29] I find that the defendant in this case was similarly “engaging in a manoeuvre that was fraught with danger”. He was making a left turn across a double solid line at a point where there was no intersection or driveway—at a point where oncoming drivers would have no reason to anticipate vehicles entering the roadway. He knew there was a curve to his right and knew or ought to have known that oncoming drivers might have limited visibility. The location and the nature of his manoeuvre required him to pay particular attention to the ditch across the road and I have found that he did so at the expense of being attentive to oncoming traffic.

[30] I also note that the Court in Dickie referred to the need for a sharp lookout before the driver crossed the centre line and before he entered the northbound lanes. In the circumstances of this case, it was not sufficient for the defendant to form an opinion about the safety of his manoeuvre before he entered the roadway. He says that he looked right at that point, but, in my view, his duty to keep a sharp lookout continued beyond that. He gave no evidence of having looked again before crossing the centre line; in my view, reasonable prudence required that he should have done so.

[31] Therefore, I find that the collision at issue was caused by the negligence of the defendant. The question then becomes whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

Mr. Justice Smith went on to give reasons explaining why he found the Plaintiff faultless for this crash holding that “the Plaintiff was entitled to proceed on the assumption that all other vehicles will do what it is their duty to do, namely observe the rules regulating traffic”.  Paragraphs 32-37 of the reasons for judgement are worth reviewing for the Court’s full discussion of why this Plaintiff was faultless.

Can A Motorist Be At Fault For Being Rear-Ended?

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized. 64 Comments on Can A Motorist Be At Fault For Being Rear-Ended?

(Please not the case discussed in the below post was overturned by the BC Court of Appeal who ordered a new trial.  You can read the BCCA decision by clicking here)
While unusual the answer is yes.  Reasons for judgement were released today discussing this area of the law.
In today’s case (Skinner v. Guo) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 BC Car Crash.  The Plaintiff was driving on Highway 1 when he rear-ended the Defendant’s vehicle which was stationary in the Plaintiff’s lane of travel.  The Defendant did not give any evidence at trial although it appears the Defendant stopped because he struck a coyote.  Given the Defendant’s lack of explanation for being stopped in a travelled portion of the roadway the Court found that he was in violation of s. 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant was at fault for the collision for stopping his vehicle and failing to activate his emergency flashers.  Mr. Justice Harvey disagreed and found the Plaintiff 100% at fault for failing to see a stationary vehicle that was there to be seen.  Before dismissing the case Mr. Harvey said the following with respect to fault when a motorist rear ends another in British Columbia:

[15] All of the cases referred to me by counsel note that there is a high onus on a following driver, as stated in Molson v. Squamish Transfer Ltd. (1969), 7 D.L.R. (3d) 553 (B.C.S.C.).  One principle to be extracted from the rear?end cases is that when one car runs into another from behind, the onus is on the driver of the rear car to show that the collision was not occasioned by his fault.  However, each case must be decided upon its facts, and I have been referred to cases where substantial liability has been imposed upon the front driver and others where the following driver has been assessed one hundred percent of the claim.  I do not find this case similar to the authorities referred to me by counsel for the plaintiff, which include McMillan v. Siemens, [1994] B.C.J. No. 2546 (S.C.); Lloyd v. Fox (1991), 57 B.C.L.R. (2d) 332 (C.A.); and W.K. Enterprises Ltd. v. Stetar, [1976] B.C.J. No. 484 (S.C.).  In each of those cases the hazard created by the negligence of the driver who had stopped his vehicle was not apparent for either reasons of weather conditions or the design of the roadway until a point where the plaintiff’s vehicle was much closer than was the case here.

[16] Baker v. Cade, [1999] B.C.J. No. 239 (S.C.), has facts which are most analogous to the case at bar.  There, the collision involved two cars and a motorcycle.  The first car stopped in the middle of a bridge, and the car immediately behind that car came to a stop as well, without activating emergency flashers.  The plaintiffs were following behind on a motorcycle.  The stopped vehicles were approximately 800 feet away when the plaintiff crested the bridge and had a view of what was happening.  The plaintiffs were unable to stop the motorcycle and collided with the rear of the second vehicle, suffering significant injury.  The role of the driver of the second vehicle in that situation is analogous to that of the defendant in this case.  While Drost J. concluded that the driver of the second vehicle was negligent, he held that his negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident.  I reach the same conclusion here.

[17] The only distinguishing factor in this case is that the accident occurred at night.  However, I find as a fact that the area was well lit and the sight line of the plaintiff would have allowed him to the defendant’s stationary vehicle approximately a kilometre away.  Indeed, the plaintiff says he did see the defendant’s vehicle, but that he did not determine until it was too late that it was stopped.  Despite his description of the traffic, he took no evasive manoeuvres to avoid striking the rear of the defendant’s vehicle.  He believes he was some 20 to 30 yards away when he slammed on the brakes.

[18] Accordingly, the action is dismissed.

For more on this area of the law click here to read a case summary where a motorist was found partially at fault for being rear-ended.

Court of Appeal Discusses Liability of Cyclists Riding In Crosswalks

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, Uncategorized.


Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Court of Appeal discussing the law of negligence with respect to cyclists who are struck by a vehicle while riding on a cross-walk.
In today’s case (Bradley v. Bath) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2003 BC Cycling/Motor Vehicle Accident.  He was riding his bicycle on the sidewalk heading towards a gas station.  At the same time the Defendant was driving a car attempting to exit the gas station.  The Defendant struck the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff sued for damages and succeeded.  The trial Judge Found the Defendant 100% at fault and damages of $396,753 were awarded.  In coming to her conclusion  she stated  “the plaintiff was not contributory negligent because the plaintiff could have been struck by the defendant’s vehicle if he had been a jogger, rollerblader or regular pedestrian rather than riding his bicycle.  Thus, she concluded that the plaintiff’s breach of the Motor Vehicle Act was not causally connected to the accident.”
The Defendants appealed arguing, amongst other things, that the Trial Judge was wrong in finding the motorist 100% at fault.  The Appeal was successful and the Court of Appeal concluded that the cyclist was 50% at fault for the crash.  In reaching this decision Mr. Justice Tysoe stated as follows:

[27] In my respectful view, the trial judge did not ask the correct question.  The proper question was not whether a jogger, rollerblader or pedestrian could have been hit by the defendant’s vehicle.  The correct inquiry was to determine whether the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for his own safety and whether his failure to do so was one of the causes of the accident.  While the judge acknowledged that the plaintiff was under a heightened duty of care because he was in breach of the law by riding his bicycle on the sidewalk, she failed to give effect to the heightened duty because she did not consider what care had been taken by the plaintiff when he saw the defendant’s vehicle moving towards the exit from the gas station.

[28] In my opinion, the plaintiff was at fault, and his fault was one of the causes of the accident.  Contrary to law, he was riding his bicycle on the sidewalk against the flow of traffic.  He saw the defendant’s vehicle moving towards the exit he was approaching.  Rather than making eye contact with the defendant or stopping his bicycle and letting the defendant’s vehicle exit the gas station, the plaintiff assumed the defendant saw him and would not accelerate his vehicle.  In these circumstances, he was at fault for continuing to ride his bicycle across the path to be taken by the defendant’s vehicle in exiting the gas station…

[30] I am of the view that the fault of the parties in this case is equal.  The plaintiff’s fault was riding his bicycle on a sidewalk against the flow of traffic and continuing to ride across the path of the exiting vehicle without ensuring his way was clear.  The defendant’s fault was his failure to keep a proper lookout when exiting the gas station.  I do not believe that one party is more culpable than the other.

This case is also worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of “In Trust” Claims and awards for “Diminished Earning Capacity” which can be found at paragraphs 37 – 52 of the Reasons for Judgement.

BC Supreme Court Discusses Law of Left Hand Turn Intersection Crashes

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases, Uncategorized.


Perhaps no type of accident has received more judicial attention than intersection collisions between left hand turning motorists and through drivers.  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court discussing the law of fault when such a collision occurs on a green light.
In today’s case (Basi v. Buttar) the Plaintiff was involved in a January, 2007 car crash in Surrey, BC.  She was travelling through an intersection when the Defendant turned in front of her as she was just about to enter the intersection.  The Defendant said that the Plaintiff was at fault because she was speeding. Mr. Justice Brown found the Defendant 100% at fault for the collision and in doing so provided the following succinct summary and application of the law:

[24] Accidents such as this are a common occurrence. Section 174 of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318 [the Act] imposes duties both on the driver proceeding through the intersection (the “through driver”) and on the driver intending to turn left. The driver turning left must yield to the through driver where the through driver is in the intersection or constitutes an immediate hazard to the driver turning left. If the through driver does not constitute an immediate hazard, that is, if it is safe to turn left, then the through driver must yield the right of way to the driver turning left provided that the driver turning left has signalled his intention to turn left per s. 172 of the Act.

[25] The main question in this case is whether the plaintiff’s vehicle constituted an immediate hazard to Mr. Sarai when he started his turn, or whether the plaintiff’s car was far enough away from the intersection so that Mr. Sarai could safely turn left. If the former, the defendant should have yielded; if the latter, the plaintiff should have yielded. However, even if one of the parties has the right of way, that does not discharge them from a duty to exercise reasonable care in the circumstances.

[26] Mr. Sarai managed to clear the intersection in sufficient time to avoid a collision; however I accept the evidence of the plaintiff and Mr. Lavergne that the plaintiff’s car and Mr. Sarai’s van nearly collided. And while, as stated, I have some reservations about Mr. Laverne’s impartiality, I have no reason to conclude that he fabricated his evidence about how close the plaintiff was to the intersection when Mr. Sarai made his turn. I find that the plaintiff was too close to the intersection for Mr. Sarai to safely complete his turn and that he should have yielded to the plaintiff in accordance with s. 174 of the Act.

[27] While counsel for the defendant urged me to find that the plaintiff was driving too fast for the slippery road conditions, the fact remains that Mr. Sarai himself confirmed that the plaintiff was driving her vehicle in a controlled and safe fashion as she approached the intersection. Of course, he also testified, in effect, that she did not constitute an immediate hazard to him as she approached, so this evidence about the plaintiff’s safe driving is also somewhat consistent with his position that he could turn safely.

[28] The strongest argument in favour of the defendant comes from the fact that the plaintiff could not control her car and Mr. Lavergne’s evidence that Mr. Sarai made his turn slowly—had he moved more quickly, the plaintiff could have travelled straight through the intersection. This could suggest that the plaintiff may have been driving too fast or over-reacted.

[29] However, I am more persuaded by the evidence that Mr. Sarai started his turn when the plaintiff was too close to the intersection. She attempted to brake and turn to the left to avoid a collision with Mr. Sarai’s van. She lost control because of the slippery road conditions. I cannot conclude on the balance of probabilities that she drove too fast for the conditions. The only evidence of that comes from Mr. Buttar, who I find had limited opportunity to observe. I prefer the evidence of the plaintiff, Mr. Lavergne and Mr. Sarai in this regard. Therefore, I find the defendant Mr. Sarai 100% responsible for the accident for failing to yield to the plaintiff’s approaching vehicle, which constituted an immediate hazard as he commenced his left turn.

The Court went on to award the Plaintiff just over $42,000 in total damages for her injuries.  In assessing her non-pecuniary damages at $30,000 Mr. Justice Brown summarized her injuries and their effect on her life as follows:

[67] This is a moderate soft tissue injury with symptoms prolonged beyond the usual period expected possibly on account of the plaintiff’s clinical history of complaints in the same areas as noted before the accident. However, she was asymptomatic pre-accident, except for occasional headaches. She has steadily improved since the accident. She returned to her to job at the bank by March 19, 2007, a little over two months after the accident, and to the CRS not long after that. She has returned to full time work, with her work hours totalling over 60 hours per week. Recreational activities such as skiing and running have been negatively impacted, and her homemaking capacity has been diminished. She has made a near full recovery from her injuries, and the accepted medical evidence indicates the plaintiff will see a full recovery in the future, though she may suffer minor flare-ups…

[70] The cases cited by counsel encompass the appropriate range of damages for a case of this kind, but of course, each case involves its own factors, and therefore requires an individual assessment.

[71] Based on all the evidence before me, I award $30,000 to the plaintiff for non-pecuniary damages