YOU AND THE LAW® NO ACCIDENT LIABILITY, THOUGH HANDS-FREE PHONE USED There's no question that distracted driving is a bad idea that can frequently lead to car crashes. But does that mean you'll automatically be liable (legally at fault) for a car accident you're involved in? highway, and in effect, forced his way across the heavy southbound highway traffic lanes. The court heard from an independent third-party witness that she had to slam hard on her brakes to avoid hitting the car in front, which had stopped suddenly to avoid a collision with Alan's car. Consider this situation facing the B.C. Supreme Court recently. James (all names changed) was driving north in the middle or left one of three northbound lanes Alan should have stopped at the stop sign and yielded to the highway traffic, but didnt. This unlawful action was what triggered the events that followed, said the court, including the eventual car crash. Highway drivers with the right of way can assume that other drivers will obey the rules of the road. If they can't reasonably avoid a car accident resulting from the illegal action of another driver, they're not obligated to take heroic measures or have extraordinary driver's skills - the blame for the accident will still be that of the other car. on a highway in Vancouver, going 50 to 60 kilometres an hour in a 50 km/hour speed zone. He was using his hands-free phone at the time, as he often did for business. Traffic northbound was light that afternoon around 4:00 p.m., but was heavy in the three lanes going southbound. He first noticed Alan's car just before it reached the double-yellow line dividing the north and southbound lanes. It slowed down and James noticed Alan looking the other direction (left), as if trying to make eye contact with southbound drivers. James was maybe two car lengths away from Alan's car when he first noticed it, and he could see the front third or half of Alan's car. Alan then accelerated quickly into the intersection across the northbound lanes, without first looking north for oncoming traffic. Alan's argument that James' speed or distraction played a role here was speculative, said the court. It was based only on assumptions Alan had asked his expert to make, rather than on the factual evidence of James and the third-party witness. (Alan didn't testify.) So James didn't have to shoulder any part of the blame. James braked hard and his anti-lock brake system kicked in, but still his car struck Alan's vehicle. In court, Alan argued that while he was partly responsible for the accident, so was James, because he was speeding and distracted due to his hands-free use of his phone (though such use is legal). Involved in a car crash? Don't throw in the towel without getting good legal help first. This column provides information only and must not be relied on for legal advice. Please call Marvin Geekie at 250-861-5678 (for your free, no obligation, initial consultation) The court, however, disagreed. It decided Alan was 100% responsible for the accident here. Written by Janice and George Mucalov, LL.B.s with contribution by Marvin Geekie. "You and the Law" is a registered trademark. O Janice and George Mucalov. It turned out Alan hadn't stopped at the stop sign facing him at the intersection before he entered the MARVIN GEEKIE DAVID YEREMA SalloumWatts Personal injury Law sw 200 - 1455 Ellis Street Kelowna, BC, V1Y 2A3 Ph: (250) 861-5678 ext.111 mgeekie@swylaw.com, www.salloumwatts.com YOU AND THE LAW® NO ACCIDENT LIABILITY, THOUGH HANDS-FREE PHONE USED There's no question that distracted driving is a bad idea that can frequently lead to car crashes. But does that mean you'll automatically be liable (legally at fault) for a car accident you're involved in? highway, and in effect, forced his way across the heavy southbound highway traffic lanes. The court heard from an independent third-party witness that she had to slam hard on her brakes to avoid hitting the car in front, which had stopped suddenly to avoid a collision with Alan's car. Consider this situation facing the B.C. Supreme Court recently. James (all names changed) was driving north in the middle or left one of three northbound lanes Alan should have stopped at the stop sign and yielded to the highway traffic, but didnt. This unlawful action was what triggered the events that followed, said the court, including the eventual car crash. Highway drivers with the right of way can assume that other drivers will obey the rules of the road. If they can't reasonably avoid a car accident resulting from the illegal action of another driver, they're not obligated to take heroic measures or have extraordinary driver's skills - the blame for the accident will still be that of the other car. on a highway in Vancouver, going 50 to 60 kilometres an hour in a 50 km/hour speed zone. He was using his hands-free phone at the time, as he often did for business. Traffic northbound was light that afternoon around 4:00 p.m., but was heavy in the three lanes going southbound. He first noticed Alan's car just before it reached the double-yellow line dividing the north and southbound lanes. It slowed down and James noticed Alan looking the other direction (left), as if trying to make eye contact with southbound drivers. James was maybe two car lengths away from Alan's car when he first noticed it, and he could see the front third or half of Alan's car. Alan then accelerated quickly into the intersection across the northbound lanes, without first looking north for oncoming traffic. Alan's argument that James' speed or distraction played a role here was speculative, said the court. It was based only on assumptions Alan had asked his expert to make, rather than on the factual evidence of James and the third-party witness. (Alan didn't testify.) So James didn't have to shoulder any part of the blame. James braked hard and his anti-lock brake system kicked in, but still his car struck Alan's vehicle. In court, Alan argued that while he was partly responsible for the accident, so was James, because he was speeding and distracted due to his hands-free use of his phone (though such use is legal). Involved in a car crash? Don't throw in the towel without getting good legal help first. This column provides information only and must not be relied on for legal advice. Please call Marvin Geekie at 250-861-5678 (for your free, no obligation, initial consultation) The court, however, disagreed. It decided Alan was 100% responsible for the accident here. Written by Janice and George Mucalov, LL.B.s with contribution by Marvin Geekie. "You and the Law" is a registered trademark. O Janice and George Mucalov. It turned out Alan hadn't stopped at the stop sign facing him at the intersection before he entered the MARVIN GEEKIE DAVID YEREMA SalloumWatts Personal injury Law sw 200 - 1455 Ellis Street Kelowna, BC, V1Y 2A3 Ph: (250) 861-5678 ext.111 mgeekie@swylaw.com, www.salloumwatts.com