IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Date: 20110603

Docket: M103066

Registry:
Vancouver

Between:

William Minosky

Plaintiff

And

Kamaljit Brar

Defendant

– and –

Docket: M100915

Registry:
Vancouver

Between:

Kamaljit Brar

Plaintiff

And

William Minosky

Defendant

Before:
The Honourable Madam Justice B.J. Brown

Reasons for Judgment

[1]          
These two related actions came on for hearing before me to determine
liability only.

[2]          
Each of these actions arises from a motor vehicle accident which took
place at 121^st Street and 64^th Avenue in Surrey.

[3]          
The accident took place on a Saturday afternoon, April 25, 2009.  It was
a clear, dry day.  121^st Street is one block east of Scott Road, or
120^th Street.  At 121^st Street, there are four eastbound
lanes on 64^th Avenue:  two through lanes and two turn lanes, one at
the south side of 64^th to turn right onto 121^st Street,
the other at the north side of the eastbound lanes to turn left onto 121^st
Street.  For westbound traffic, there are three lanes to the east of the intersection,
two through lanes and one left turn lane to turn south onto 121^st
Street.  The collision took place in the intersection of 121^st
Street and 64^th Avenue.

MR. MINOSKY’S EVIDENCE

Mr. Minosky said that on the afternoon of April 25^th,
he was looking for an address and had been driving in the vicinity, searching
for the address.  He was driving north on 121^st Street.  At the
intersection with 64^th Avenue, there is a stop sign for northbound
traffic.  He stopped at the stop sign and waited for traffic to clear.  As he
left the stop sign, he first noticed the Brar vehicle.  He was approximately
two feet beyond the stop sign, in motion.  The Brar vehicle was at or near the
Scott Road intersection.  He continued to drive forward at a normal speed.  As
he continued into the intersection, he saw a westbound vehicle approaching from
his right, so he brought his vehicle to a stop, approximately four feet south
of the edge of the through lanes for the westbound traffic.  He saw Ms. Brar’s
vehicle again, now approximately half-way between his vehicle and Scott Road. 
In his view, Ms. Brar had ample opportunity to avoid a collision with his
vehicle and he was not concerned about her vehicle.  He waited for the
westbound car to pass.  His vehicle was stopped facing straight north.  Immediately
after the westbound vehicle passed, he was struck by the Brar vehicle.  The
Brar vehicle collided with the front driver’s corner of his vehicle.  After the
collision, his vehicle remained facing straight north and Ms. Brar’s vehicle
was facing north-east.

MS. BRAR’S EVIDENCE

[4]          
Ms. Brar said that she left work at about 2:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. on April
25^th.  She is an insurance specialist with VanCity and the branch
closed at 3:00 p.m.  She drove south on Scott Road, and turned left onto 64^th
Avenue from Scott Road.  She was in the center most through lane, or the fast
lane.  She said that she had slowed when she turned left from Scott Road and
had not yet reached full speed when she saw Mr. Minosky’s vehicle in motion in
the area of the stop sign.  She said that she was some two to five car lengths
away when she realized that Mr. Minosky was not going to stop.  She
immediately applied her brakes and honked.  She thought that she had brought
her vehicle to a stop and that Mr. Minosky’s vehicle struck hers.  She
said that her vehicle was facing northeast after the collision and Mr.
Minosky’s vehicle was facing northwest.  She said that she had been travelling
50 – 55 kilometres per hour when she first applied her brakes.

[5]          
Ms. Brar also relies on the accident reconstruction opinion of Jonathan
Lawrence.  After considering the versions of events of each of Ms. Brar and Mr. Minosky
as well as the damage to the vehicles, Mr. Lawrence concluded:

1.         Mr. Minosky started to
pull forwards from the stop line about 4.6 to 5.7 seconds before the collision.
At this instant the Acura was probably between 51 and 78 meters away.

2.         In order for Ms. Brar to
have had an opportunity to stop short of the path of the Chrysler she would
have had to detect it as an unambiguous hazard before it entered the straight
through lanes eastbound 64th Avenue.

3.         Two independent methods
for calculating distance suggest that the Acura was between 45 to 69 meters
away when Mr. Minosky first saw it.  This distance is likely insufficient for
the Chrysler to safely clear the eastbound lanes had the Acura been approaching
at 50 or 60 km/h.

4.         Had Mr. Minsoky detected
the Acura as an unambiguous hazard when he first saw it he could have stopped
short of entering the eastbound straight through lanes.

DISCUSSION

[6]          
Each of Ms. Brar and Mr. Minosky have a superficially plausible
explanation as to how the motor vehicle accident happened.  However, Mr.
Minosky’s version is not consistent with the physical evidence.  The damage to Mr.
Minosky’s vehicle is primarily to the centre and toward the passenger side of the
front of his vehicle.  Mr. Lawrence considered the damage to the vehicles
and concluded:  “The damage to the cars indicated that the right front corner
of the [Brar] Acura collided with the right front corner of the [Minosky]
Chrysler.”  If Mr. Minosky were stopped, facing north, four feet south of the
westbound travel lane as he said he was, it would be impossible for
Ms. Brar to cause the damage to his vehicle, were she travelling in the
centre most eastbound, or fast lane.  Even if she were turning left, as Mr. Minosky
assumes she was, and Mr. Minosky’s vehicle were facing straight north, the
damage would not be to the centre and passenger side of his hood as it is.  I do
not accept Mr. Minosky’s evidence of how the accident occurred.

[7]          
I accept Ms. Brar’s evidence that she was travelling in the centre most
through lane eastbound.  Ms. Brar lives on 64^th Avenue.  She drives
64^th Avenue several times a week.  She said that she has never
turned left onto 121^st Street, that there is no reason for her to do
so.  Ms. Brar’s description of how the collision occurred is entirely
believable and is consistent with the physical evidence.

[8]          
I conclude that the Brar vehicle was much closer than Mr. Minosky
believed it to be when he left the intersection.  It was an immediate hazard.  Ms.
Brar was not speeding and was attending to traffic.  She had no opportunity to
stop and avoid the collision.

[9]          
Mr. Minosky argues that, based on Ms. Brar’s estimates of speed and
distance, Ms. Brar would have had ample opportunity to avoid Mr. Minosky’s
vehicle if she saw him moving out from the stop sign.  Mr. Minosky argues that
Ms. Brar said that she was some two to five car lengths from Mr. Minosky when she
concluded that he wasn’t going to stop.  Had this been so, she would have
travelled by Mr. Minosky before he had an opportunity to enter her lane of
travel.

[10]       
This argument places too much weight on Ms. Brar’s estimates of
distance.  When she first concluded that Mr. Minosky was not going to stop, it
would have been an emergency situation.  She said she slammed on her brakes and
honked, but was not able to avoid the collision.  In these circumstances, I do
not expect that a person would be able to measure with precision the distance
between her vehicle and the vehicle with which she was about to collide.  I
give little weight to Ms. Brar’s estimates of distance.  Many people are poor
judges of distance.  However, I do accept her evidence of how the collision
happened.

[11]       
Section 175 of the Motor Vehicle Act places the burden on Mr.
Minosky to yield to traffic that is approaching so closely that it constitutes
an immediate hazard.  Mr. Minosky has not satisfied me that he yielded as
required.  Rather, I have concluded that when he entered the intersection, the
Brar vehicle was an immediate hazard.  I find that Mr. Minosky is 100% at
fault.

“B.J. Brown J.”
The Honourable Madam Justice B.J. Brown