A B.C. Supreme Court appeal has upheld a Provincial Court ruling that split liability 50/50 between a road maintenance contractor and a driver after a single-vehicle collision on icy pavement near Smithers. The case, Billabong Road & Bridge Maintenance Inc. v. Brook, 2011 BCSC 297, turned on how quickly the contractor was required to sand a known icy stretch of highway once it was spotted — and whether it met that standard.
The Accident
On the morning of February 17, 2007, Brittany Brook was driving to work on Highway 16E between Telkwa and Smithers. Conditions were slippery, so she got behind a sanding truck and kept her speed down to 60–70 km/h in a 90 km/h zone. The sanding truck stopped sanding once it cleared a curve just outside Telkwa. When Brook's vehicle reached that unsanded stretch, she lost control on the ice, left the road, and rolled her vehicle. She was not injured, but the car was written off.
Billabong Road & Bridge Maintenance Inc. held the highway maintenance contract for that section of road. Its crews had been out sanding and plowing since midnight in response to changing weather. A supervisor patrolling the highway between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. detected the ice and phoned a driver, instructing him to sand the hills and corners between Telkwa and Smithers first, then move on to the straight stretches. The accident happened around 8:30 a.m. — while that driver was still working the hills and corners and had not yet reached the straight section where Brook crashed.
The Trial Decision
The Provincial Court judge found Billabong 50% at fault for not completing the sanding quickly enough, given the known conditions, the time of day (just before the morning commute, on a well-travelled stretch), and the forecast that had been in place the night before. Brook was found 50% at fault for not adjusting her driving to match the icy conditions. Damages were assessed at $6,500 for the totalled vehicle, split evenly — $3,250 against Billabong.
The Appeal
Billabong appealed, arguing the trial judge had held it to a stricter standard than its actual maintenance contract with the Province required, and that liability should have been all-or-nothing rather than split down the middle.
At trial, Billabong had entered its maintenance contract into evidence. The contract distinguished between different triggers for winter maintenance. Where ice or slippery conditions were detected proactively during a patrol — as happened here — the contract required traction to be restored immediately at all locations, with no priority given to hills and corners over straight stretches. Priority for hills and corners only applied when responding to an active or recently-ended snowfall event.
Madam Justice Bruce confirmed the legal framework that applies to contractors who take over road maintenance from the Province:
- Policy decisions — such as the response-time windows set out in the maintenance contract itself — reflect government policy balancing cost against safety, and are effectively immune from a private-law negligence claim, provided the contractor meets them.
- Operational decisions — how the contractor actually carries out the work within those policy parameters — remain subject to the ordinary private-law standard of reasonable care.
Applying that distinction, the Court found Billabong's obligation here was operational: the contract required an "immediate" response once slippery conditions were spotted on patrol, with no room to prioritize hills and corners ahead of the affected area. The supervisor called it in around 7:00 a.m.; the crash occurred at 8:30 a.m., with the crew still working through the hills and corners and not yet at the stretch where Brook lost control. Justice Bruce held there was evidence supporting the trial judge's conclusion that this fell short of a reasonable response time, particularly given how heavily travelled that stretch of highway is just before the start of the business day.
The Court also rejected Billabong's argument that liability had to be all-or-nothing. It was open to the trial judge to find two contributing causes of the accident: Billabong's failure to restore traction in time, and Brook's own failure to take adequate evasive or precautionary action once she encountered the icy conditions.
Result
The appeal was dismissed, the 50/50 split liability finding was upheld, and costs were awarded to Brook.
Learn More
- Log in to post comments