Were the Traffic Lights Working?

This case determines the liability for a collision at the intersection of 96 Avenue at 168 Street in Surrey. The crash occurred in darkness, high winds and rain. The questions to be resolved at trial were concerning the headlights on the Vora vehicle and whether the traffic lights were working or not.

Confusion

The road names in the judgment are confusing. 160th Avenue does not exist in Surrey and one cannot travel southbound on 96 Avenue at 156 Street. It seems likely that the crash occurred at the intersection of 96 Avenue and 156 Street but this is not certain. 

Ms. Vora

Ms. Vora was traveling on 160th Avenue approaching 156th Street using the middle lane. She said that the traffic lights were not working so she used the 4 way stop procedure. When it was her turn she drove straight ahead without looking to her left or right.

She said that she had her headlights on at the time of the collision.

Mr. Adams

Mr. Adams was traveling on 156th Street facing a green light. His speed was about 78 km/h in the 50 zone. He was hit by Ms. Vora as he crossed the intersection of 96th Street.

He knew that there were power outage issues in the area as the traffic lights at a previous intersection he had passed through were not working.

The Traffic Lights Were Working

After listening to testimony, Justice Ball found that Ms. Vora's headlights were on, the traffic lights were functional, Mr. Adams was speeding and Ms Vora entered the intersection improperly.

Of interest in the judgment is a discussion concerning intersections where the traffic lights have failed and speeding where it prevents the driver from taking reasonable steps to avoid a collision.

In conclusion each party was found to be 50% at fault for the crash.

Learn More

• Read the Reasons for Judgment - Vora v Adams

Share This Article