The case of involves a collision that occurred on Centre Street between Pacific and Royal Avenues in White Rock. The combination of no driver's side mirror, parking too closely and not paying attention combined to cause trouble.
Difficulty Leaving the Parking Space
Kelby Dahlke was parked at the curb of Centre Street facing southbound and wanted to exit the parking space to join traffic. Heather Davidson was approaching his parked position, not fully paying attention to driving. When Mr. Dahlke lurched into traffic Ms. Davidson did not react immediately and a collision resulted.
Mr. Dahlke had been boxed in by vehicles that were parked too closely to the front and rear of his vehicle. Consequently he was having difficulty leaving the parking spot. He signalled but did not have a driver's side mirror so he was having difficulty monitoring approaching traffic.
Driver's Side Mirror Requirement
The judgment does not say what year of manufacture the car driven by Mr. Dahlke was. The Motor Vehicle Act Regulations require vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1973 to have a driver's side mirror.
Two drivers stopped to let him out, but he waved them on.
Mr. Dahlke lurched to a 45 degree angle to the curb 60 to 80% of the way into the lane of travel and stopped. He looked behind, saw Ms. Davidson coming and braced for the crash. She did not see him in time and hit him in the driver's door area.
ICBC's General Advice
ICBC's website has a page that explains liability for a crash while leaving a parking space. In general, it says that the driver leaving the space is 100% at fault.
Justice Stephens found differently.
Decision on Liability
Justice Stephens apportioned liability at 60% for Mr. Dahlke and 40% for Ms. Davidson:
[106] I find that the Accident was caused by the fault of both parties. The plaintiff lurched awkwardly and abruptly at a 45-degree angle out into the southbound lane from his parking spot, relying on a shoulder check and without a functioning driver’s side mirror (his rear-view mirror did not assist him in seeing oncoming traffic in the southbound lane since he was positioned at a 45-degree angle to the curb).
[107] However, the defendant was distracted and reacted late to the plaintiff’s entry to the southbound lane.
[108] I find that the plaintiff’s action moving his vehicle in order to exit from the parked position could have been made with reasonable safety and he did give a signal, and he did not contravene s.169 of the MVA.
[109] However, both parties drove without due care and attention, contrary to s. 144 of the MVA. The defendant’s distracted state caused or contributed to the accident occurring. But for her negligence, the Accident also would not have occurred.
[110] However, I do not apportion liability equally; instead, I apportion it 60% to the plaintiff. I find the plaintiff is more at fault because he lurched awkwardly from his curbside parking spot: Constable Tam described him moving out more quickly than he would normally see a vehicle leave a parallel parking spot, and I find this is so. And in addition, the plaintiff was without a driver’s side mirror.
Learn More
Share This Article
- Log in to post comments