Who is liable for rear-ending of a vehicle parked in a live lane on a Busy Street?

Who is liable when a motorist hits a parked car depends largely on whether or not the stopped vehicle was parked legally.  In parking lot accidents, the driver of the moving vehicle is liable if they hit a legally parked car.  Similarly, if a vehicle is legally parked at the side of a road, the driver of the vehicle that strikes the parked car is at fault.  In any rear-end collision situation, whenever a motorist rear-ends another vehicle, whether the front vehicle has stopped or just slowed down in traffic, the driver of the rear vehicle is almost always found at fault.  In such situations, Ontario case law has decided that motorists should drive at an appropriate speed and leave enough room to stop even in emergency situations, to effectively avoid crashing into a car that has unexpectedly slowed down or stopped.

In the 2014 trial, Aston Gon (by his Litigation Guardian) v. Daniele Bianco, the judge was tasked with determining whether there is a genuine issue for a trial following a collision in which a minivan was rear-ended on a busy Toronto street after experiencing mechanical problems. The driver whose car struck the stopped vehicle took the position that the minivan driver was negligent in stopping on a busy street when there were other options available for parking her vehicle.  In this action, the minivan driver, Ms. Hartman-Dery sought to have any claims against her dismissed arguing that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motor vehicle accident occurred when Ms. Hartman-Dery was driving her Dodge minivan on Jane Street in Vaughan, and began to hear a beeping noise and noticed a bumpy ride and smell of rubber.  When these indicators worsened and a yellow light illuminated on her dashboard, the driver turned on her hazard lights and brought her vehicle to a stop on the far right hand side of Jane Street.  After pulling over, Ms. Hartman-Dery began looking for the owner’s manual.  During this time, a Toyota Corolla driven by Mr. Gon drove up behind the parked car and was forced to stop while waiting for a gap in traffic that would allow him to pass. Although only forced to wait for likely less than 15 seconds, a BMW X5 driven by Mr. Bianco rear-ended the fully stopped Corolla, which in turn struck the minivan.  Mr. Bianco testified that he was travelling at the speed limit, 70 km/hr and looked down for one second to change the radio station when he saw the Corolla and slammed on his brakes to stop. He did not recall seeing any hazard lights or brake lights on Mr. Gon’s car.   The accident occurred during favourable weather conditions and on a flat and straight stretch of road. 

It was the position of the drivers of the stopped vehicles that the liability for the collision rests solely on the BMW driver.  This argument relied on the finding in Beaumont v. Ruddy, in which the fault for a rear-end collision rests entirely on the driver who rear-ended a truck that stopped unexpectedly.   The court in this case relied on the following conclusion:  Generally speaking when one car runs into another from behind, the fault is in the driving of the rear car, and the driver of the rear car must satisfy the Court that the collision did not occur as a result of his negligence.

One of the issues considered in determining fault is whether stopping on Jane Street was a reasonable decision by the driver of the mini-van, under the circumstances. In particular, the defendant BMW driver argued that there were several nearby side streets and businesses that the minivan driver could have chosen rather than stopping in a live traffic lane. In this regard, Mr. Bianco’s defence argued that Ms. Hartman-Dery contravened the Highway Traffic Act and is negligent.  The defendant relied on Findlay v. Diver wherein the court stated that “leaving a vehicle on the travelled portion of a highway when it is not necessary to do so was a serious and obvious source of danger”.  

Ms. Hartman-Dery’s defense council did not dispute that she could have pulled into business driveways along the way, but they argue that this is irrelevant with regards to the reasonableness of Ms. Hartman-Dery’s actions.  The minivan driver stated that she was not familiar with the area and also, she believed her vehicle was disabled was therefore entitled to stop.   Under section 170(1) of the Highway Traffic Act:

No person shall park, stand or stop a vehicle on a roadway,

(a) when it is practicable to park, stand or stop the vehicle off the roadway; or                     

(b) when it is not practicable to park, stand or stop the vehicle off the roadway unless a clear view of the vehicle and of the roadway for at least 125 metres beyond the vehicle may be obtained from a distance of at least 125 metres from the vehicle in each direction upon the highway.

In McKee v. Malenfant, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the manner in which a vehicle (in this case, a truck) was parked on a highway or road is immaterial with regards to liability.  The Court noted, “to stop a car for some temporary purpose upon its proper side of the road cannot be negligence per se.”

The judge in Aston Gon concluded that the mixed facts and law in this case do not allow him to make a fair and just determination of the liability of the various parties, and agreed with the defendants that this case is not one which can be decided on a motion for summary judgement.  An example of evidence which has not been properly evaluated is the disagreement about traffic flow, between the minivan driver and corolla driver; the former alleged that traffic was light at the time of the accident, but Mr. Gon disagreed, stating that traffic was very busy. Yet, a factual determination on the flow of traffic is significant in relation to the reasonableness and prudence of Ms. Hartman-Dery’s decision to stop in a live traffic lane. The judge did not go so far as to find negligence on the part of Ms. Hartman-Dery, but would leave this to a jury to decide in a future trial based on all the “nuances of causation and negligence”.

Who is liable in a motor vehicle accident, even one involving a rear-end collision, is not necessarily clear, nor does 100% liability necessarily rest wholly on one party or another.  It is not unusual in complex accidents, such as Aston-Gon, to find that the plaintiff was contributorily liable in causing a collision, which correspondingly impacts the percentage in damages awarded to the plaintiff.

If you were injured in an automobile collision or another accident, call a knowledgeable and respected Injury Lawyers of Ontario attorney in your community.  Our team of personal injury lawyers in Vaughan offer a free no-obligation consultation to learn the unique circumstances of your case and advise you on the optimal approach for obtaining owed compensation.