The case of Vujevic v Parnell involves the determination of liability for a u turn crash that happened near the intersection of the Mount Seymour Parkway and Fairway Drive in North Vancouver. At this location the Mound Seymour Parkway is a three lane road in a residential area.
Circumstances of the Collision
Doreen Parnell was driving her Dodge Ram pickup and was parked eastbound on the Mount Seymour Parkway. She had the right side wheels of her vehicle partially onto the curb or sidewalk.
Anita Vujevic was driving her Mazda 3 eastbound on the Mount Seymour Parkway as well. As she passed by the Parnell vehicle Ms. Parnell started to make a u turn and the two vehicles collided. Ms. Parnell stopped and backed up, scraping the side of the Mazda again.
Ms. Parnell denies liability for the collision and suggested that if she is, the liability should be shared equally.
Making a U Turn
U turns can only be made in a few situations on B.C. roads. When they are, it is up to the driver making the u turn to do so safely.
Justice Doyle said:
[172] The left shoulder, side view mirror and rear view mirror checks which the defendant described making during her testimony make perfect sense if the defendant’s truck was stopped on the shoulder as described by the plaintiff. The defendant’s evidence about when she completed those checks varied. If she did make them, it is clear that her checks were deficient: the defendant turned her truck and immediately hit the plaintiff’s vehicle. If she did not make them, or did not make them in a timely way in relation to commencing her turn, the legal impact is the same.
Decision on Liability
Justice Doyle found Ms. Parnell to be 100% at fault for the crash.
Learn More
Share This Article
I guess in terms of liability U-turn is similar to backing, opening the car door, turning right on the red light or turning left on the green light without arrow and etc. You would be at fault by default and it would be hard / on you to prove otherwise because you have to make sure you do all those actions safely.
People at fault (when they also understand it fully well as in this case, read the full file) make up stories and just lie to the court / ICBC all the time. Dashcam is your savior.
Another interesting thing is that the plaintiff was awarded a lot of money by the court, particularly interesting is the loss of future earning capacity. I guess that's where you want a really good lawyer to show that your life was ruined beyond repair...
On a side note, where is this money going to come from? From the party at fault or ICBC insurance? Is it covered by 3rd party liability insurance? Clearly $200 000 basic insurance is not enough for such payouts. What would happen to Ms. Parnell with 100% at fault if she had only the basic insurance?
| a) Non-pecuniary damages | $150,000.00 |
| b) Past loss of earning capacity: | $120,000.00 |
| c) Loss of future earning capacity: | $550,000.00 |
| d) Cost of future care: | $16,800.00 |
| Special damages: | $2,988.29 |
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Where does the money come from?