Driving related decisions by the courts.
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.
A BC Supreme Court decision explains how drivers must safely turn across a dedicated bike lane and why both the driver and cyclist were found partly responsible for the collision.
Opening a vehicle door seems like a routine action, but it carries a legal responsibility. Section 203(1) of British Columbia's Motor Vehicle Act requires that you must not open a vehicle door into moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe to do so. A recent BC Supreme Court decision shows that this duty remains even when the approaching road user also shares responsibility for the collision.
Passing lanes are designed to help drivers move safely around slower traffic, but problems can arise when a pass is not completed before the lane ends. A BC court case provides an important lesson about cooperation, awareness, and avoiding a collision when two lanes become one.