In Niyokuku v. Cheasley, 2022 BCSC 2016, the Supreme Court of British Columbia considered a collision that occurred while one driver was changing lanes. The court found that both drivers were responsible: the driver changing lanes had not ensured that the manoeuvre could be completed safely, while the driver already in the lane had failed to keep a proper lookout and react defensively.
The collision
On April 13, 2018, Fatuma Niyokuku was driving her Kia Rondo out of the Real Canadian Superstore parking lot at 76 Avenue and King George Boulevard in Surrey. She intended to turn right onto King George Boulevard, so she needed to reach the curb lane of 76 Avenue.
After crossing the eastbound lanes, Ms. Niyokuku turned left into the middle of the three westbound lanes. She activated her right-turn signal, checked her mirrors and shoulder checked before beginning to move into the curb lane.
Joseph Cheasley was approaching in a Dodge Nitro in that curb lane. The front driver's-side corner of his vehicle struck the rear passenger-side corner of Ms. Niyokuku's Kia while she was still changing lanes.
Both drivers claimed the other was responsible for the collision. The case proceeded to trial before Mr. Justice Brongers.
What the court considered
The court considered the responsibilities imposed on drivers by the Motor Vehicle Act, including section 151(a), which prohibits a driver from moving from one lane to another unless the driver has ascertained that the movement can be made safely and will not affect the travel of another vehicle. Section 144(1) also requires drivers to exercise due care and attention.
Ms. Niyokuku argued that she had changed lanes carefully and that Mr. Cheasley was responsible because he failed to notice her vehicle in time to avoid the collision. Mr. Cheasley argued that she had moved into his lane without ensuring that it was safe to do so.
Justice Brongers rejected the suggestion that this was simply a rear-end collision. The physical contact between the vehicles occurred while Ms. Niyokuku was still moving into the curb lane. The court therefore treated it as a lane-change collision, with the usual burden on Ms. Niyokuku to establish that Mr. Cheasley was negligent.
Why both drivers were at fault
The judge accepted that Ms. Niyokuku had signalled and checked her mirrors and blind spot before starting the lane change. She had seen Mr. Cheasley's vehicle and believed that there was enough distance for her to move in front of it.
However, the evidence of her passenger, Brenda Bagonza, was important. Although Ms. Bagonza initially thought the lane change could be completed safely, she then saw Mr. Cheasley's vehicle approaching quickly and believed a collision was imminent.
The judge concluded that Ms. Niyokuku should have recognized the developing danger and abandoned the lane change, remaining in the middle lane until Mr. Cheasley had passed.
That did not make Mr. Cheasley blameless. He acknowledged that vehicles leaving the Superstore parking lot regularly attempted to cross several lanes to reach the curb lane before turning right onto King George Boulevard. Despite being familiar with this traffic pattern, he testified that he did not see Ms. Niyokuku's vehicle until it entered his lane.
The judge found that there was no evidence that other vehicles had obstructed Mr. Cheasley's view. Had he been keeping a proper lookout, he should have seen Ms. Niyokuku's vehicle and its activated right-turn signal. He should then have reacted defensively by slowing down.
The court also was not persuaded that Mr. Cheasley sounded his horn in time to prevent the collision.
The decision
Justice Brongers concluded that both drivers had contributed to the collision and that their degrees of fault were equal. Liability was apportioned 50% to Ms. Niyokuku and 50% to Mr. Cheasley.
The court awarded Ms. Niyokuku $86,745.38 in damages, taking that apportionment of fault into account. The award included compensation for pain and suffering, past income loss, future loss of earning capacity and special damages.
Lessons for drivers
This decision illustrates that the responsibility for avoiding a collision does not always rest entirely with the driver who changes lanes.
- Make sure the lane change is safe. Signalling, checking mirrors and shoulder checking are important, but they do not guarantee that there is enough time and space to move into another lane.
- Keep assessing the situation. A manoeuvre that initially appears safe may become dangerous as the relative positions and speeds of vehicles change. Be prepared to abandon the lane change rather than continue into danger.
- Keep a proper lookout. Drivers travelling in an established lane must remain aware of surrounding traffic, including vehicles that may be preparing to enter their lane.
- Respond defensively. Seeing another driver make a mistake does not remove your opportunity or responsibility to take reasonable action to avoid a collision.
The central lesson is that a driver may have priority in a lane without being free of responsibility for what happens around them. Both drivers must exercise reasonable care, and a court may apportion responsibility when the actions of each contribute to a collision.
Learn More
- Log in to post comments