The case of Huang v Wamboldt involves a collision between a driver and a pedestrian at the intersection of East 3rd Avenue and Cotton Drive in Vancouver. Lily Huang was walking westbound on the north side of East 3rd Avenue crossing Cotton Drive and Dwight Wamboldt was driving eastbound on East 3rd Avenue intending to turn left onto Cotton Drive.
At issue is whether Ms. Huang walked into the path of Mr. Wamboldt or that Mr. Wamboldt turned left when he should have yielded to Ms. Huang.
Madam Justice Warren's decision on liability rested on her observation that "Central to the positions of each party is the location of the defendants’ vehicle at the moment Ms. Huang stepped off the curb. As I will explain, this is the key fact on which the assessment of Ms. Huang’s conduct rests."
She examines the obligations of a driver turning left at an intersection (Section 174 MVA) and a pedestrian's obligations when stepping off the curb to cross the road (Section 179(2) MVA).
Justice Warren found that Mr. Wamboldt was 100% at fault for the collision as it was practical for him to stop at the time that Ms. Huang stepped into the crosswalk.
"Justice Warren found that Mr. Wamboldt was 100% at fault for the collision as it was practical for him to stop at the time that Ms. Huang stepped into the crosswalk." I assume that Justice Warren stated that stopping was practicable for the driver. "Practical" means, in this context, convenient; “practicable” means possible with available means, in this case a motor vehicle. The word “practical” appears no where in the Motor Vehicle Act; “practicable” appears in numerous places.
- Log in to post comments
Yes the judge did use the term "practicble" not the term "practical".
- Log in to post comments
Yes the judge did use the term "practicble" not the term "practical".
I think you'll find the word in use was "practicable" actually. It occurs througout the MVA & Regs.
The point is, the driver assumed that at this intersection, she would notice him in time to react to her.
The driver admitted he had seen her, but signalled the turn and expected her to pause instead of continuing; there is no suggestion that she was behind his A-pillar, or seen to late.
Both were wrong. Both were assuming, neither was defensive - she was busy chatting on the phone as she walked into his path.
I think this is a 50/50. They're both stupid and presumptive.
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Practical vs practicable