Serving All of British Columbia
infobc@preszlerlaw.com Call 1-888-404-5167

Is the Motorist Always Responsible for Pedestrian Accidents in B.C.?


Although pedestrian accidents are by definition a mismatch–a 1,500-kilogram car versus a human being–that does not mean the motorist is automatically liable for any injuries sustained by the pedestrian. As with any personal injury claim, a court must consider the relative fault of all parties involved. A judge may, in fact, decide that the pedestrian is largely responsible for his or her own injuries due to the pedestrian’s own negligence.

Call 1-877-572-1324 to speak with our British Columbia legal intake team for free Book Free Consultation

Vandendorpel v. Evoy: Pedestrian Held 80% Liable for Accident

A recent decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal, Vandendorpel v. Evoy, offers a helpful illustration. This personal injury case actually made its second appearance before the Court of Appeal. In a 2015 decision, the Court of Appeal held the trial judge failed to properly apply the law before deciding the pedestrian plaintiff was 100% responsible for his accident. Following that ruling, the trial court reconsidered and decided the plaintiff was only 80% at-fault. This time, the Court of Appeal decided not to disturb the trial judge’s decision.

Here is briefly what happened. The plaintiff was walking to work one morning at around 6:45 a.m. The plaintiff approached a crosswalk and pressed the button to activate the traffic signal. However, the plaintiff did not wait for the “raised hand” signal and started to cross the road. While he was in the middle of the road, he saw the defendant’s car approaching. At this point, the plaintiff “began to run directly across” the road, according to court records.

For his part, the defendant said he did not see the plaintiff in the road “until it was too late to avoid the collision.” The front of the defendant’s car hit the plaintiff’s right foot, which knocked him to the ground. The plaintiff subsequently sued the defendant for his damages arising from this collision.

As mentioned above, the trial judge initially determined the plaintiff was 100% at-fault. This conclusion was based on the judge’s finding the plaintiff “breached statutory and common law duties imposed on him as a pedestrian.” This included the plaintiff’s failure to obey pedestrian traffic control signals, failing to keep a proper lookout for cars, and failing “to take precautions when there was an apparent hazard by sprinting across the [defendant’s vehicle’s] path rather than retreating.” Simultaneously, the judge also determined that the defendant did not breach of any his statutory duties as a driver.

On this latter point, the Court of Appeal disagreed. In its 2015 decision, the appellate court identified a number of statutory duties the defendant may have breached, including whether he was traveling above the posted speed limit at the time of the accident. The Court of Appeal therefore directed the trial judge to reconsider the evidence and reassess the comparative fault of both parties.

Pedestrian Showed “Reckless Disregard” for the Law

After a second hearing, the trial court did in fact determine that the defendant was speeding. The applicable speed limit was 50 km/hour. Based on expert testimony, however, the court found the defendant was actually travelling at around 55 km/hour. That said, the judge held that the defendant’s speeding did not outweigh the plaintiff’s reckless conduct as a pedestrian. Accordingly, the revised judgment found the defendant only 20% liable for the accident and the plaintiff’s injuries.

To go into more detail, the trial judge noted that while both sides “failed in their respective duties of care” under B.C. law, the plaintiff’s failure was more egregious. The judge reiterated the plaintiff was “dressed in dark clothing, including a dark hooded pullover that was zipped up to the top.” None of the clothing had “light reflective qualities,” which would have made it easier for a motorist–including the defendant–to spot the plaintiff in the middle of the road. And while wearing dark clothing alone is not negligent, this had to be looked at in combination with the fact the plaintiff was also “wearing headphones and listening to music [] that reduced his ability to hear any oncoming traffic,” while attempting to cross a five-lane highway in the early morning hours. And as noted earlier, the plaintiff did not wait for a clear traffic signal before proceeding into the intersection initially.

The judge also pointed out that the headlights from the defendant’s vehicle “would have been visible from at least 100 metres away.” The fact the plaintiff did not see the car before it hit him strongly suggested he failed to keep a lookout for vehicles. Given all these factors, the trial judge concluded that the plaintiff showed a “reckless disregard for his duties as a pedestrian on the roadway,” which outweighed the “minimal” speeding of the defendant.

The Court of Appeal said that during this second hearing, the trial judge “considered and applied each statutory duty” within the boundaries of the law. The plaintiff may have been dissatisfied with the result, but he was not entitled to “reargue his case” on appeal. And given the facts, the trial court’s apportionment of fault was not “grossly disproportionate” to what has been established in prior B.C. cases.

Speak with the Vancouver Pedestrian Accident Lawyers at Preszler Injury Lawyers Today

If there is one takeaway from this case, it’s that you cannot presume that just because you are a pedestrian, you are free to act recklessly when crossing a street. The law imposes certain duties on drivers and pedestrians alike. So, when you are out walking, keep these basic tips in mind:

  • Always look both ways for vehicular traffic before crossing an intersection.
  • Always wait for the crosswalk signal, even if you do not see any opposing traffic.
  • Do not wear headphones or look at your smartphone when crossing an intersection.
  • If walking at night or early in the morning, try to wear reflective clothing to help motorists see you.

Of course, if you are in an accident, you should still seek qualified legal advice from a Vancouver personal injury lawyer. Contact the Preszler Injury Lawyers today if you have been involved in a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident and need immediate assistance.

Source:

CanLII

Connect With Our Legal Team



Schedule a call with our personal injury legal intake team. Our team is available 24/7 so call us now to book your call. Our scheduled intake allows you to tell us details about your accident and gives our legal team an opportunity to review your case and advise you on possible solutions and outcomes. The best part is, if you decide to hire us after this call - you don't pay anything unless we win. We can help clients regardless of where they reside in British Columbia so let us help you get started on your road to recovery.

 

1075 West Georgia Street
Unit 800,
Vancouver, BC
V6E 3C9
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
1631 Dickson Avenue
Suite 1100,
Kelowna, BC
V1Y 0B5
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
7164 120th Street
Suite 202,
Surrey, BC
V3W 3M8
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
5811 Cooney Road
Suite 305 South Tower,
Richmond, BC
V6X 3M1
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
4720 Kingsway
Suite 2600,
Burnaby, BC
V6E 3C9
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
1321 Blanshard Street
Suite 301,
Victoria, BC
V8W 0B6
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
2655 Clearbrook Road
Suite 260,
Abbotsford, BC
V2T 2Y6
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
*These are consultation offices that require a booked meeting in advance. Walk-ins are not allowed.

DISCLAIMER: Please be advised that the header image and other images throughout this website may include both lawyer and non-lawyer/paralegal employees of Preszler Injury Lawyers and unrelated third parties. Please note that the purpose of this disclaimer is to ensure that the usage of our spokesperson, John Fraser, or any other non-lawyer/paralegals in our legal marketing is not to be construed in any way as misleading to the public. Any questions regarding the usage of non-lawyers in our legal marketing or otherwise can be directed to management. Please be advised that some of the content on this website may be out of date. None of the content is intended to act as legal advice as each situation is independent and unique and requires individual legal advice from a licensed lawyer or paralegal. For legal advice on your individual situation – we can provide legal guidance after you have contacted our firm and we have established a lawyer-client relationship contractually. Please note that some of the content on this website may be out of date and no longer relevant after May 2021. For additional clarification on legal questions please contact our law firm and book a consultation with a member of our legal team.