Winter Conditions? Pass With Caution

Winter Conditions? Pass with Caution

We have all driven on a highway in winter conditions when, out of nowhere, an aggressive driver passes our vehicle, spraying the windshield with sleet or snow. The BC Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that a driver will be found, at least partially, liable for an accident caused by this type of unsafe driving.

Link v. ICBC involved a Plaintiff who was driving in the right lane of a highway in winter conditions, when a passing SUV sprayed sleet and snow onto the Plaintiff’s windshield causing him to lose control of the vehicle. At Trial, the driver of the SUV was found to be at fault for the accident. The Court found that the driver of the SUV was not driving with due care and attention, nor were they driving with reasonable consideration for the Plaintiff. The Decision was appealed and the BC Court of Appeal upheld the Trial Judge’s Decision. The Court of Appeal provided the following reasons:

[12] It appears to me it was clearly open to the judge to find that the speed of the SUV was excessive for the conditions. The plaintiff was travelling 40 to 60 kilometers per hour and, on his examination for discovery (the whole transcript of which ICBC put in evidence), he said the SUV “roared right by” and suggested it was twice as fast as he was “putting along”. He agreed that could have been 100 kilometers an hour, although he said he could not speculate because it all happened so fast. There was, of course, no evidence to the contrary and common sense dictates that, as any driver would know, the greater the speed of a vehicle the greater the amount of snow it may throw up when changing lanes on a snow-covered highway. It simply could not be said that if the SUV had passed more slowly and had not cut in front of the Jaguar as quickly as it did, the windshield of the Jaguar would have been completely obscured as it was. The speed of the SUV was excessive for the conditions because of the effect its speed had.

[13] In my view, no error has been shown in the judge’s concluding that, in what he described as the “treacherous” conditions prevailing, the driver of the SUV had not met the standard of care required of him in the circumstances. That vehicle was required to be operated with due care and attention and with reasonable consideration for the plaintiff who was driving the Jaguar at a slow speed in the right-hand land. If undertaken, the passing and change of lanes was required to be done safely without adversely affecting the travel of that vehicle. It was open to the judge to conclude as he did the driver of the SUV knew or ought to have known the risk that was inherent in his operating that vehicle as he did. Clearly the standard of care was breached.

[14] It follows that I would dismiss the appeal.