The court found the jury's decision that both parties were equally negligent reasonable
The BC Court of Appeal upheld a jury's decision to equally apportion fault between a motorcyclist and a driver involved in a collision at an uncontrolled intersection.
The defendant appealed the verdict and argued that the plaintiff should bear full responsibility for the accident, as the motorcyclist travelled 100 kilometres per hour in a 50-kilometre-per-hour zone.
The appeal raised two primary issues: whether the jury's apportionment of fault was unreasonable and whether the judge's instructions to the jury were improper.
Most Read
The court held that a jury's verdict should only be overturned if it is one that no reasonable person could have arrived at. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff should be 100 percent at fault did not meet this threshold. The evidence presented showed that the motorcyclist accelerated to a high speed and was not looking in the direction of travel immediately before the collision. Conversely, the defendant did not see the motorcycle when he began his left turn. The court deemed the jury’s decision that both parties were equally negligent reasonable, aligning with the standard that such findings should only be disturbed in extreme cases.
The appellants argued that the judge improperly charged the jury by introducing the concept of "last clear chance," which was not raised by the defendant. The judge decided to caution the jury to prevent them from wrongly attributing liability based solely on which party had the final opportunity to avoid the collision. The Court of Appeal found no error in this instruction, noting that it was clear and appropriately brief.
Additionally, the appellants contended that the judge erred by telling the jury that the defendant could not assume the plaintiff would obey the speed limit. The Court of Appeal disagreed, stating that while drivers might generally expect others to follow traffic laws, this does not absolve them of the duty to account for other vehicles that could be immediate hazards due to excessive speed. The court found the judge’s corrective instruction on this point appropriate and not misleading.
In conclusion, the BC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the jury's decision to apportion fault equally between the motorcyclist and the driver. The court underscored the jury’s role in resolving factual disputes. It upheld the lower court's handling of the case, emphasizing that the jury’s verdict was reasonable based on the evidence presented.
