Siegrist v. Wiens is a British Columbia Supreme Court decision about a collision that happened when a farm tractor towing a hay wagon turned right while a car was passing it on Highway 1 near Canoe.
The case is a useful reminder that the driver of a vehicle towing a long trailer has to know where the trailer will go when turning and must ensure that the turn can be made safely.
On June 7, 2016, Helen Siegrist was driving her Nissan Sentra northbound on Highway 1 with her husband as a passenger. They came up behind a farm tractor travelling slowly and partly on the shoulder. The tractor was towing a Highline 700 hay wagon approximately 41 feet long and loaded with nine large round hay bales.
The highway was straight and flat, visibility was good and the posted speed limit was 90 km/h. Other vehicles had already passed the tractor and hay wagon. When the southbound lane became clear, Mrs. Siegrist began to pass as well.
As the Nissan was passing, 17-year-old Kenton Wiens turned the tractor to the right toward a farm driveway.
That created the problem.
The hay wagon's wheels and axles were located under the front portion of the wagon. As the tractor turned, the rear portion of the approximately 41-foot wagon swung outward in a wide arc. One of its rear rails swung into the northbound lane and struck the passenger door of the Nissan.
The impact tore the door from the car and sent the Nissan into the ditch, where it caught fire. Mrs. Siegrist and her husband had to be pulled from the vehicle by other motorists.
Who was responsible?
The defendants argued that Mrs. Siegrist was responsible because she was passing the tractor and hay wagon when the collision occurred.
Justice G.P. Weatherill reached the opposite conclusion. He found that Mr. Wiens was entirely responsible for the collision.
Mr. Wiens knew that the rear of the hay wagon would swing outward when he turned. He also knew that vehicles following him would want to pass because the tractor and wagon were travelling slowly. In fact, the judge found that he had positioned the tractor partly on the shoulder to allow vehicles to pass and that he expected them to do so.
There was another important problem. The hay wagon had no lights or turn signals. Although the tractor itself had signal lights, the large hay bales and the wagon's configuration obscured them from vehicles following behind.
In other words, the driver approaching from behind had no effective warning that the tractor was about to make a right turn that would send the rear of the wagon swinging across the lane.
The driver's responsibility
The court found that Mr. Wiens should have checked to make sure that no vehicle was immediately behind him or attempting to pass before beginning the turn.
The judge put it this way:
“Mr. Wiens had the obligation to control the Hay Wagon and know where the rear of it would be at any given time.”
That was particularly important because Mr. Wiens knew that the wagon would swing into the northbound lane when he turned. He also knew that vehicles were passing him.
The court concluded that turning without ensuring that no vehicle was attempting to pass was negligent and caused the collision.
What about the passing driver?
The court also considered whether Mrs. Siegrist had done something wrong by passing.
Justice Weatherill found that she had the legal right to pass and that, from her perspective, the manoeuvre was safe. She had no way of knowing that the tractor was about to turn or that the rear of the hay wagon would swing into her lane.
The judge concluded that a reasonably prudent driver in her circumstances would have done precisely what she did.
This is an important point. A driver passing a slow-moving vehicle cannot necessarily be expected to anticipate an unusual movement that the driver has no reasonable way of seeing or knowing about.
The lesson
Long vehicles and trailers do not always follow the path of the towing vehicle when they turn. The rear of a trailer can swing outward, sometimes considerably.
A driver towing a trailer therefore has to understand its turning characteristics and make sure that the entire combination can make the turn without conflicting with other traffic.
In this case, the court found that Mr. Wiens knew both that vehicles were passing him and that the rear of his hay wagon would swing into their path. He had the better opportunity to see the danger and avoid the collision, but he turned without making sure that no vehicle was attempting to pass.
The court found Mr. Wiens 100% liable for the collision. Mr. Steiner, the owner of the tractor and hay wagon, was found vicariously liable.
The decision is not a rule that a passing driver is always free of responsibility. Passing must still be done safely. Rather, it demonstrates that responsibility can rest with the driver making a turn when that driver knows that the vehicle being operated will create a hazard for traffic that the driver should reasonably expect to be there.
Learn More
- Log in to post comments