18 Jun Road Rage Incident

A case of road rage near the Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal was litigated in Myers v. Gallo, 2017 BCSC 2291.  The two female drivers involved disagreed on many aspects of the accident, including each other’s behaviour and attitude before, during and after the collision. What was not disputed was that the Defendant received a traffic ticket immediately after the accident for changing lanes over a solid line. She did not contest that ticket or report the incident to ICBC.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was 100% liable for the accident.  The Defendant thought that the Plaintiff should be held liable for some portion of the accident.

The Plaintiff testified that as she was driving near the ferry terminal, she noticed the Defendant’s van behind her, honking loudly, revving up its engine and getting very close to her vehicle. The Plaintiff was shocked when the van pulled up along her on the left side, and then swiped into her vehicle. She said the passenger in the van leaned out the window, and yelled something like, “You like that?” The Plaintiff saw the driver laughing. The van then hit her vehicle a second time.

The Plaintiff took the exit into the ferry drop-off area and parked. The van took the same exit and then parked a short distance in front of her. The Plaintiff testified that the Defendant and passenger got out of the van and “high fived” each other before stopping just in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Defendant came to the driver’s side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and yelled, something like “You fat pig”, at which point the Plaintiff called 911.

The Defendant had a different version of events.  She testified that she was  driving behind a car and after the road split into two lanes, she drove into the left lane. When she realized that she was in the wrong lane, she engaged her turn signal and started moving into the right lane. She looked in her rear-view mirror and saw the Plaintiff’s car a full car length behind her. When she slowly started to merge into the right lane, the Plaintiff’s vehicle hit hers.

The Defendant testified that after impact she drove past the car and pulled over to park. When she and her son got out of the van, the Plaintiff made a gesture, which she interpreted to be a racial slur. The Defendant admitted that she yelled, “Shut your mouth, you fat cow” at the Plaintiff.

The Court preferred the Plaintiff’s version of events, for a number of reasons.  The Plaintiff’s version of events was coherent and consistent with other evidence.  On the other hand, the Defendant’s description of the accident contained significant inconsistencies and was, at points, illogical. The Defendant claimed to be “very familiar” with the area yet she was confused or unaware that only the first exit was designated for picking up passengers, and the second and third exits were designated only for dropping off passengers. Also, if she was truly unaware that the exits had different purposes, and one could pick-up or drop-off at any exit, why did she think she was in the “wrong lane”, since she could simply have driven ahead to the last exit, which was only accessible from the left lane?

The police confirmed the call was dispatched as an incident of “road rage”. The Court thought it was highly improbable that the Plaintiff would report the incident as road rage, if she had caused the incident.  It was also difficult for the Court to accept the Defendant would rely on the Plaintiff’s reporting of the incident to the police rather than making the call herself, if she believed the Plaintiff caused the collision.

It was difficult for the Court to believe the police would not record that the Plaintiff had made an offensive gesture to the Defendant if the Defendant reported it, and the Court thought that if it had occurred the Defendant would have mentioned it when she spoke with the police.

The Defendant testified that after confronting the Plaintiff, she and her son waited calmly by their truck. She denied that they were laughing at any point. However, she admitted during her examination for discovery that they did laugh after returning to the truck. The Court noted that neither laughing nor remaining calm was consistent with just experiencing a racial slur.

The Court found that prior to the accident, the Defendant was honking incessantly and driving close up behind the Plaintiff. The Court inferred from that she was irritated and that probably led to her passing in front of the Plaintiffs’ vehicle to get into the right lane. The Defendant cut off the Plaintiff’s vehicle as they both headed toward the exit.  The Defendant was negligent in failing to ensure there was enough room to do so safely. The Court concluded that the Defendant was 100% liable for the accident.