The Agony of the Collision

A recent motion decision dealt with the standard of care in emergency situations.

In Dubois v. Ford Credit Canada Leasing, 2012 ONSC 7311 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle being driven by Gunn.  An oncoming vehicle crossed into Gunn's lane and he swerved left to avoid the accident.  Unfortunately, the other driver also swerved and they collided.

Gunn brought a motion for summary judgment on the basis that his actions occurred in an emergency situation and he was not negligent on the basis of the "agony of the collision" principle.  Justice Spence reviewed three formulations of the test for negligence in an emergency:

1.  Which focuses on whether the driver was driving with the skill and care expected of a reasonable driver at the time and place in issue;
2.  Which provides that the driver has a duty to extricate himself and his passengers from the situation with safety if possible, but his conduct is not to be judged by the standards involving deliberation and the opportunity for careful and conscious decision.  He is not negligent for failing to adopt the best course of action in the light of hindsight;
3.  Which provides that if driver A loses control and seeks to apportion blame on B, A must show that B became aware or should have become aware and had an opportunity to avoid the accident.

Justice Spence concluded:

[39]  The conclusion to be drawn from the above analysis is that the test to be applied is properly set out in the first formulation on the understanding that, as emphasized in the second formulation, a driver in the “agony of a collision” generated by an emergency, may properly be considered to have acted reasonably even though his conduct might not be considered reasonable if it had occurred in circumstances that offered a reasonable time for decision.

Justice Spence dismissed the motion for summary judgment, as there were competing expert opinions and the potential for unfairness to the plaintiff, who was an innocent passenger. Although the decision is an interesting summary of the "agony of the collision" principles, it also imports a fairness component, which introduces a new factor in the analysis.

Defendant Who Crosses Centre Line Prima Facie Negligent

The Court of Appeal has set aside a jury verdict that dismissed an action against a defendant who crossed out of his lane and collided with another vehicle.

In El Dali v. Panjalingham, 2013 ONCA 24 (C.A.), the plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident when the defendant lost control of his vehicle on an icy road, crossed the centre line, slid into oncoming traffic, and hit the plaintiff's vehicle.  The plaintiff remained on his side of the road and was able to bring his vehicle to a complete stop.  The police officer who attended the scene decided not to lay charges due to weather conditions.  The defendant did not testify at trial and called no other evidence to explain his driving.

A jury found there was no negligence on the part of the defendant and dismissed the case.  The plaintiff appealed.  The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The defendant breached s. 148 of the Highway Traffic Act by crossing the centre line of the road and a driver who does so is prima facie negligent.  The driver then bears the onus of explaining that the accident could not have been avoided with the exercise of reasonable care.  The explanation need not come from the defendant, but must come from someone or the defendant will be held at least partially responsible.  The fact the police officer did not lay charges and that there were icy road conditions were not sufficient to support the jury's conclusion.  Defence counsel suggested a 50% apportionment in her closing, which also suggested the defendant bore some responsibility.

Those defending similar claims will have to consider the appropriate evidence to call in order to rebut the onus to explain how the accident occurred without negligence.

Action Dismissed for Failing to Comply with Municipal Act Notice Requirement

Argue v. Tay (Township), 2012 ONSC 4622 (CanLii)

A municipality was recently successful in having a case dismissed based on the failure of the plaintiff to comply with s. 44(10) of the Municipal Act.  The section requires written notice be given to the clerk within ten days of the incident.  Section 44(12) provides that the failure to give notice can be excused if the plaintiff has a reasonable excuse and the defendant is not prejudiced by the lack of notice.

In Argue v. Tay (Township), the plaintiff alleged she sustained soft tissue injuries in a motor vehicle accident caused by potholes in the defendant municipality's road.  She provided written notice through her lawyer almost two years after the incident.  By that time, the surface of the road had changed materially.  The plaintiff argued the municipality had either actual or constructive knowledge of the accident as the municipal volunteer fire department attended the scene and would have received a copy of the police report.  The municipality brought a summary judgment motion seeking to have the action dismissed for failing to comply with the Municipal Act notice requirement.

DiTomaso J. held the plaintiff did not comply with the notice requirements.  Section 44(10) requires written notice be given to the clerk and the fact that the fire department attended or may have received a copy of the police report was insufficient to comply with the section.  There is no support in the jurisprudence that actual or construction notice pre-empts the requirement to give written notice to the clerk, and the section cannot be dispensed with in favour of notice to a different municipal department.

The plaintiff had no reasonable excuse for the failure to give notice.  She was discharged from hospital the same day as the accident, had no broken bones and was able to return to work two to three weeks after the accident.  She was aware people could bring lawsuits and believed the state of the road contributed to the accident, yet took no steps to inform herself about the law.  She was physically and mentally able to instruct counsel. 

The municipality had been prejudiced by the lack of notice.  There is a presumption of prejudice where notice has not been provided and the plaintiff bears the onus of showing there was no prejudice.  She failed to do so.  Neither she nor the municipality had photos or measurements of the road, the condition of the road had changed materially since the accident and the municipality had lost the opportunity to interview witnesses.  As a result, summary judgment was granted.

Argue is a useful summary of the relevant authorities relating to s. 44(12). Those defending municipal claims with notice issues should consider whether it would be useful to bring a summary judgment motion in the circumstances.

Actions by Insured against Insurer – Limitation Period not always Certain

Shaver v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. [2011] AJ No. 1411

Mr. Shaver was injured in a three vehicle accident on July 14, 2000 with one other identified driver. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund accepted liability for the accident and consented to a partial judgement in Mr. Shaver’s favour for $100,000.00. This judgement was entered on January 19, 2010.

Mr. Shaver found this compensation to be inadequate and issued a claim against his insurer, the Co-operators, on July 29, 2010 based on the SEF 44 endorsement in his policy:

Every action...against the insurer...under this endorsement shall be commenced [within 2 years] from the date upon which the eligible claimant...knew or ought to have known that the quantum of the claims with respect to an insured person exceed the minimum limits for motor vehicle liability insurance in the jurisdiction in which the accident occurred.

The Co-operators brought a summary judgment motion in Alberta arguing that Mr. Shaver was out of time as more than 10 years had passed since the claim arose. Mr. Shaver argued that his claim against the Co-operators arose only on January 19, 2010.

The court held that the limitation period in this endorsement allowed an injured person to sue later than the ultimate 10 year statutory limitation period in cases where the insured learned of inadequate insurance or of total claims exceeding the insurance limits after the expiry of that limitation period. The Co-operators appealed this decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, citing the principle provided by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [1994] AJ No. 126:

An insured’s claim against his own insurer arises not at the time of the accident, but when he knows, or should have known, that the tortfeasor’s coverage will be inadequate to cover the insured’s damages.

In the case at hand, both parties agreed that it was not until January 19, 2010 that Mr. Shaver knew that the torfeasor’s coverage would not be sufficient.

- Kristen Dearlove, Student-at-Law

In rear end collisions, liability is often considered to be automatic. But the Court of Appeal has reminded us that there is no such fixed rule.

In Martin-Vandenhende v. Myslik, 2012 ONCA 53 (C.A.), the plaintiff alleged the defendant rear-ended her vehicle as she slowed to make a left turn. She testified she activated her left turn signal prior to slowing down and commencing the turn. The defendant’s version of events was that the plaintiff activated her right turn signal and pulled to the right, which he interpreted to mean she was pulling over to allow him to pass. As he pulled around her vehicle, she turned left into him.

The trial judge found in favour of the plaintiff. He held that “taken at its highest”, the signal was “perhaps confusing” and the plaintiff was “perhaps giving [the defendant] inconsistent signals”. The Court held that this was not taking the defendant’s evidence at its highest, as his evidence was unequivocal: he was not confused or being given inconsistent signals, as he testified the plaintiff indicated she was going right, not left.

Justice Blair cited Beaumont v. Ruddy , [1932] O.R. 441 (C.A.) for the proposition that generally speaking, where one car runs into another from behind, the fault lies with the driver of the rear car, and he must satisfy the Court that the collision did not occur as a result of his negligence. Since the trial judge did not make factual findings to resolve the conflicting testimony between the parties, it could not be said one way or another whether Beaumont had been satisfied. Justice Blair held:

31 In addition, the trial judge's approach was wrong in law, in my view. The common law principle enunciated in Beaumont v. Ruddy does not prescribe that a following driver is always at fault if he or she runs into another from behind. It simply states that generally speaking this will be the case, and shifts the onus to the following driver to show otherwise. There is no principle of law of which I am aware that automatically fixes a following driver who runs into another vehicle from the rear with liability "no matter what [the lead driver] chooses to do, within [his or] her own lane." Subject to the law's general bias in favour of fault on the part of the following driver and the "following too closely" jurisprudence, liability - as in any negligence case - depends upon whether the following driver was acting reasonably in the circumstances and, conversely, whether the lead driver was as well.

The Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

- Tara Pollitt