Driver Found 10% At Fault for Timing a Green Light
As previously discussed, having the right of way does not automatically result in a driver being found faultless for a collision. Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating this.
In this week’s case (Matheson v. Fichten) the Plaintiff was a passenger in a Northbound vehicle in a designated left hand turn lane. The advance green arrow ran its course resulting in a green light for North and south bound traffic. The driver proceeded with his turn despite no longer having the advance green arrow.
At the same time the Defendant was driving Southbound in the curb lane. He was several car lengths back from the intersection when his light turned green. Other Southbound vehicles began to accelerate but then stopped realizing the Plaintiff vehicle was turning. The Defendant did not stop and entered the intersection when the collision occurred.
Despite having the right of way the Southbound Defendant was found 10% at fault for the collision. In coming to this assessment Madam Justice Smith provided the following reasons for judgement:
 I find that the Bahniwal vehicle was travelling at the speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour, or perhaps a bit less, as it proceeded up the southbound curb lane. I accept Mr. Kaler’s evidence that Mr. Bahniwal had slowed when the light ahead was red, but then resumed speed after the light turned green, two to three car lengths from the intersection. I find that the presence of vehicles in the two lanes to his left obscured Mr. Bahniwal’s view of what was occurring in the intersection except for the portion immediately in front of him. The vehicles in the two lanes to Mr. Bahniwal’s left began to move forward, but they stopped almost immediately. Mr. Bahniwal overtook those vehicles and passed them on the right, entering the intersection on a green light but without noting that the vehicles to his left had stopped, or taking any particular precaution before entering the intersection…
 I have found as fact that Mr. Bahniwal proceeded through the intersection on a green light. Accordingly, he had the right of way. His was the dominant vehicle; Mr. Fichten’s vehicle was in the servient position.
 The question in the end is whether either Mr. Fichten or Mr. Bahniwal or both, was in breach of the duty of care he owed to the plaintiff. I take into account the Motor Vehicle Act provisions as informing the requisite standard of care (Ryan v. Victoria,  1 S.C.R. 201 at para. 29).
 It is clear that Mr. Fichten was negligent in making his left turn when it was unsafe to do so after the light had changed, and in particular by crossing the curb lane of southbound traffic without checking that it was free of oncoming vehicles.
 Turning to Mr. Bahniwal, what is the duty of a driver who enters an intersection in the circumstances that faced him? He was in the curb lane, his view of the intersection was blocked by other vehicles, and those vehicles, having entered the intersection, had subsequently stopped…
 In my opinion, when the light facing Mr. Bahniwal turned green and the vehicles on his left proceeded forward and then stopped, Mr. Bahniwal had the opportunity to recognize, and should have recognized, that something had caused them to stop. His approach into the intersection should then have been tempered with caution, even though he had the light in his favour and had built up some momentum. He did not take that approach but, instead, proceeded at the speed limit into the intersection. His vehicle was in the dominant position, but he was not entitled to overlook a clear indication of a possible hazard in the fact that the vehicles to his left had stopped very soon after having begun to move. The traffic was not backed up in the southbound lanes, as it was inRobinson v. Wong, and the timing of the vehicles stopping was inexplicable from his vantage point. A careful driver would have reacted to the possibility that a left-turning vehicle, a pedestrian, or some other hazard was still in the intersection.
 I find that Mr. Bahniwal was in breach of his duty of care, and allocate liability 10% to him and 90% to Mr. Fichten.