When an accident involving at least one motor vehicle occurs, one of the most important determinations is who is at fault for the accident. This is because the assignment of fault will determine each party’s responsibility in compensation for damages or injury suffered by other parties involved in the accident. Regarding many accidents, particularly those that give rise to substantial personal injury or property damage, liability for the accident is often hotly contested. Unless traffic cameras happen to catch the accident, or one of the vehicles possesses a camera that records the accident, determining which party is responsible for causing an accident often becomes a dispute of narratives between the drivers/passengers of the various vehicles involved.
Thankfully, British Columbia has a Motor Vehicle Act that provides guidelines on how courts should determine fault in accidents involving at least one motor vehicle.
A Tale of Two Accidents
The case of Heffernan v Chahal involved Richard Heffernan and Navdeep Chahal. Richard Heffernan had been involved in two motor vehicle accidents within 18 months: the first in May 2018 and the second in January 2020. Richard sought compensation for damages and injuries suffered in both accidents. Although the defendants involved in the second accident admitted liability, the defendant in the first accident, Navdeep Chahal, did not. As such, and because Richard denied responsibility, as he had sued Navdeep for damages, the matter proceeded to a trial to determine fault for the accident.
The Circumstances of the Disputed Accident
The accident in dispute occurred on May 15, 2018, at approximately 7:45 in the morning, while the weather was clear and the roads were dry. Navdeep, driving a 2011 Ford Mustang, rear-ended Richard’s 2005 GMC Savana van near a T-intersection. Although these facts were agreed to have occurred by Richard and Navdeep, they disagreed with why the accident occurred. Richard maintained that he approached the T-intersection when the light was red, made a complete stop, observed oncoming traffic to ensure it was safe to turn, then executed a right-hand turn into the lane of traffic in which Navdeep was already travelling and proceeded several feet before being rear-ended at high speed by Navdeep’s vehicle. For his part, Navdeep insisted that he had approached the T-intersection at a safe speed and had observed Richard’s vehicle turn into Navdeep’s lane of travel, but claimed he had misjudged the speed of Richard’s vehicle and thus did not apply his vehicle’s brakes in sufficient time to avoid the accident. Navdeep contended that Richard had effectuated his right turn on a red light before it was safe and that Richard had breached his statutory and common law duties and was thus at fault for the accident.
The Legal Principles Applicable to Determination of Fault for Motor Vehicle Accidents
As mentioned, in British Columbia, the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) governs the determination of fault for motor vehicle accidents. It should be noted that although the MVA guides the assessment of liability for motor vehicle accidents, it does not provide a complete legal framework, as it is impossible to cover every conceivable scenario in the legislation. As such, “road users are expected to exercise reasonable care even when others may have violated right-of-way rules.” The BC courts have established that all BC motorists have a common law duty to “exercise reasonable care in all circumstances,” which includes “maintaining proper lookout and taking appropriate precautions to address potential hazards” and following all applicable traffic laws. In assessing liability for an accident, “the court considers whether each party fulfilled their duty of care, taking into account both the reasonableness of their actions and the applicable rules of the road.” However, the final decision for liability relies upon the specific facts of each case. The obligation to exercise reasonable and due care in all circumstances is codified in section 144 of the MVA.
The MVA also includes specific provisions concerning driver responsibilities to traffic lights, stop signs, driving through intersections, parking, turning left or right, and following too closely, to name just a few. For rear-end collisions, the law in BC is “well-settled” that the driver of a motor vehicle that rear-ends another is prima facie responsible for failing to maintain a safe distance from preceding vehicles and driving with due care and attention. As such, the driver that rear-ends another vehicle will be automatically considered at fault for the accident unless they provide evidence to displace this assumption.
To be successful, Richard must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Navdeep’s negligence caused or materially contributed to the injuries and damage suffered in the accident. Importantly, Navdeep’s negligence need not comprise the sole cause of injury so long as his contribution is found by the court to extend beyond the de minimis range. In making this decision, the court will consider the credibility and reliability of all parties who offer evidence regarding the accident.
Application of the Legal Principles to the Facts of This Case
After assessing the credibility and reliability of the testimony offered by both Richard and Navdeep, the court continued to determine where, precisely, the accident occurred. This is an important determination, as specific provisions of the MVA apply to accidents that occur in intersections and those that occur in travel lanes. As such, it is imperative that the exact location of the accident be established so that the court can apply the proper legislative provisions. In this case, the court was satisfied, upon review of all of the evidence, that “the accident must have occurred past the intersection in the curb lane because of the geometry of the collision and the fact that the defendant hit the rear center of the plaintiff’s vehicle.”
In other words, as Navdeep’s car could only have struck Richard’s vehicle in the centre if Richard had completed his turn from the intersection into Navdeep’s lane of travel, thus Richard must have completed his turn, and the accident had to have occurred in the lane of travel, as opposed to the intersection.
Although the court was satisfied that Navdeep was largely responsible for the accident, it also noted that Richard was not entirely blameless. Under section 175 of the MVA, Richard was, in these circumstances, wherein he entered a new lane of travel via turning right on a red light from an intersection, the servient driver. If Richard had entered the intersection by section 175(1), he would have been entitled to proceed with caution, and Navdeep would have been accorded a duty to yield. However, as Richard had turned right on a red light, “he had a heightened requirement to act with due care and regard to the traffic in those circumstances. In this case, he needed to account for any vehicles proceeding along [the street into which he turned], which included accounting for his vehicle’s acceleration lag as he entered the throughway.” As a result, the court was satisfied that both Richard and Navdeep had contributed to the accident.
The court assessed the parties’ relative blameworthiness using BC’s Negligence Act and precedent law and concluded that Navdeep bore 90 per cent responsibility for the accident and Richard’s 10 per cent liability.
Vancouver Personal Injury Lawyers Advising Clients On Their Personal Injury Claim
Whether you’re a plaintiff or defendant in a personal injury case, having skilled legal representation is paramount. At Meridian Law Group, our experienced personal injury lawyers are dedicated to providing comprehensive legal counsel to guide you through the complexities of your case. From catastrophic injuries to minor property damage, we offer compassionate and tenacious representation to safeguard your rights and maximize your recovery.
Based in downtown Vancouver, we proudly serve clients across British Columbia. Contact Meridian Law Group today at (604) 687-2277 or online to schedule a confidential consultation.
