Driving related decisions by the courts.
In Niyokuku v. Cheasley, 2022 BCSC 2016, the Supreme Court of British Columbia considered a collision that occurred while one driver was changing lanes. The court found that both drivers were responsible: the driver changing lanes had not ensured that the manoeuvre could be completed safely, while the driver already in the lane had failed to keep a proper lookout and react defensively.
In Trytko v. Kafafi, 2006 BCPC 349, the British Columbia Provincial Court considered liability for a collision at the intersection of Jervis Street and Nelson Street in Vancouver. The judgment refers to the intersection as a roundabout, but there were no yield signs controlling the approaches. The court therefore considered the drivers' obligations at an uncontrolled intersection under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
An emergency vehicle's flashing lights and siren do not give its driver an unrestricted right to disregard the rules of the road. British Columbia's Motor Vehicle Act permits certain driving privileges in defined circumstances, but the driver must have a proper justification for exercising them and must continue to drive with due regard for safety.
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.
Siegrist v. Wiens is a British Columbia Supreme Court decision about a collision that happened when a farm tractor towing a hay wagon turned right while a car was passing it on Highway 1 near Canoe.
A vehicle stopped near an intersection may not be parked. It may be waiting for a pedestrian, another vehicle or some other reason. Lee v. Cheuck, a British Columbia Small Claims Court decision, illustrates why that distinction can matter.
What should you do when a deer suddenly appears in front of your vehicle? Most drivers would instinctively try to avoid it. But what happens if your attempt to avoid the deer causes a crash?
A rear-end collision usually puts the focus on the driver who struck the vehicle ahead, but that does not necessarily mean the following driver is entirely responsible. A 2009 decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court provides a good example of why both drivers' actions may have to be considered.
What responsibility does a driver have when stopping a vehicle creates a hazard for other road users? A 2009 decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia illustrates that complying with a specific traffic rule is not necessarily the end of the matter.
A common question from drivers who receive a speeding ticket is whether police must use radar or laser to prove that they were speeding. A British Columbia appeal decision shows that radar or laser is not always required. Under the right circumstances, a court may accept a police officer’s visual estimate of speed as evidence. Under the right circumstances, a court may accept a police officer’s visual estimate of speed as evidence.