A motor vehicle accident may be unforeseeable and no-one may be responsible or liable for injuries arising from the accident.
The Plaintiff's claim for damages resulting from a motor vehicle accident was dismissed where the Court held that the Defendant was not liable for his vehicle sliding on an unexpected patch of ice on a bridge. In assessing damages on a provisional basis, the Court concluded that general damages would have been limited to $2,500 pursuant to recent amendments to the Insurance Act, RSNS 1989, c.231.
Farrell v. Casavant, [2009] N.S.J. No. 351, July 31, 2009, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, D.K. Smith A.C.J.S.C. (T.D.)
A motor vehicle accident occurred when the Defendant's motor vehicle slid on an unexpected patch of ice on a bridge. The Court found that the Defendant driver had breached a statutory and common law duty to allow the Plaintiff half of the road free and clear. This gave rise to a prima facie case of negligence casting upon the Defendant driver the "onus of explanation". In reviewing the circumstances, the Court noted that the weather on the day of the accident was clear with good visibility. The Defendant was driving a mechanically sound vehicle equipped with all terrain radial tires that had good tread. The Defendant was driving 15 - 20 km/hr below the posted speed limit and had no forewarning of the slippery condition. The Court concluded that the Defendant was driving with the degree of care and caution that a reasonably competent driver would exercise under similar circumstance and had, therefore, met the standard of care required of him. The Court held that the collision was an unfortunate accident for which no one was legally liable.
The Court went on to assess damages on a provisional basis. The Court found that the Plaintiff suffered the following injuries as a result of the accident:
(a) an injury to his right chest area that went on to heal uneventfully;
(b) an injury to his lower back which continued to cause pain/discomfort;
(c) a small chip fracture to his left hand that went on to heal uneventfully;
(d) a contusion to his right ankle that went on to heal uneventfully; and
(e) a fracture to his right wrist which resulted in an obvious deformity of that wrist and which continued to cause pain/discomfort.
Based upon the threshold requirements set out in Section 113B of the Insurance Act, RSNS 1989, c.231, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff had not suffered a permanent "serious" disfigurement. The Court also concluded that while the Plaintiff had suffered a permanent impairment of important bodily functions caused by continuing injuries that were physical in nature, such impairments were not "serious" as defined by the legislation. On this basis, general damages would have been limited to $2,500.
This case was originally summarized by Jonathan D. Meadows and originally edited by David W. Pilley.
