Paul Ntahondakirira - v. -, 2016 SKPC 6

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN CIVIL DIVISION Citation: 2016 SKPC 006 Date: January 13, 2016 File: SC#193 of 2015 Location: Saskatoon _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Paul Ntahondakirira - and - Darren Shaver Self For the Plaintiff Self For the Defendant _____________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT V.L.

MONAR ENWEANI , J _____________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] This claim arises as a result of a motor vehicle collision on June 25, 2013 at the intersection of 23 rd Street and 1 st Avenue in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The plaintiff was driving a 2003 four door Honda Civic. The defendant, a transport driver, was driving a large truck and trailer. Both vehicles were attempting to make a right hand turn at the intersection.

[ 2 ] The plaintiff alleges that the defendant caused the accident when the back of his semi-truck hit the plaintiff’s vehicle and pushed it onto the sidewalk. The defendant denies responsibility for the accident, and alleges that the plaintiff drove his vehicle into the skirt of the trailer. EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES [ 3 ] The plaintiff, Paul Ntahondakirira, resides in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. On June 25, 2013, the plaintiff was on his way to the Saskatchewan Transportation Company.

He testified that when he arrived at the intersection of 1 st Avenue North and 23 rd Street East, he stopped his car to turn right because there was a red light. He was in the right hand lane. As he was checking the traffic in order to make his turn, the light turned green, and a semi-truck came up on his left side, in the left hand lane. The semi-truck turned right. The plaintiff did not move his car, because the semi-truck had taken up the entire space. The back of the semi-truck hit him and pushed his vehicle onto the sidewalk. He honked at the driver of the semi-truck. He attempted to follow the semi-truck.

However, by the time he caught up with the driver of the semi-truck, the driver had already been stopped by the police. [ 4 ] Several photographs of the damage to the plaintiff’s vehicle were entered as exhibits at the trial. As well, a damage estimate prepared by SGI was filed as an exhibit at the trial.

The damage estimate indicates that the vehicle suffered damage, primarily to the left fender, front and rear door, and left quarter panel, in the total amount of $3,236.45 ($3,095.73 + $140.72 GST). [ 5 ] On cross-examination, the defendant challenged the plaintiff’s assertion that the defendant had been travelling at a speed of 60 km/hr. The plaintiff conceded that this was just an estimate but he stated that the defendant’s vehicle was travelling fast. When asked whether he tried to turn out into the left hand lane, the plaintiff stated that he did not, and that his vehicle stayed in the same place.

He said that all of the space was occupied by the truck when it turned right. [ 6 ] The defendant, Darren Shaver, resides in Manitoba. At the time of the accident, he was a transport driver for Graphic Transport and had just finished deliveries for Saskatoon Star-Phoenix newspaper bundles. He stated that he did not receive any notice of a claim in relation to this matter until approximately one year and eight months after the fact. However, it was apparent from his evidence that on June 25, 2013, shortly following the accident, he was stopped by the police in relation to this matter.

He candidly stated in his testimony that there were certain points that he did and did not remember. The defendant testified that he “kind of remembered” the corner of 23 rd Street and 1 st Avenue. He said that he would not speed through that intersection because it would be deadly to do so. He was attempting to make a right hand turn. He was in the left lane for a wide right turn. He said he was looking in both directions. He proceeded with his right hand turn and someone hit his trailer. He continued driving up to Idylwyld Drive and was then stopped by the police.

The defendant said that the plaintiff was on the inside lane, and he speculated as to whether the plaintiff tried to come out into the left hand lane. The defendant said he did not see any vehicles in his blind spot. On cross-examination, the defendant was asked why he did not stop immediately following the collision. The defendant stated that he did not realize anyone had run into the trailer. He stated: “I didn’t see anything if it did happen”. He further stated he would not hit and run and he did not recall anything hitting the trailer.

ANALYSIS [ 7 ] The following provisions of the Traffic Safety Act are relevant to this matter: s. 213(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway without due care and attention;

(2) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway. s. 218(1) If the driver of a vehicle intends to turn right at an intersection, the driver shall approach the intersection and make the turn as closely as possible to the right hand curb or edge of the highway.

[ 8 ] In addition to the foregoing, the defendant argued that the SGI Saskatchewan Driver’s Handbook was relevant. The Handbook is a reference source intended to help individuals develop safe and competent driving skills.

Section 3 of the Handbook contains basic information and rules of the road. The defendant pointed to s. 3.4 which speaks of sharing the road with large trucks. In particular, the Handbook states in part as follows: The driver of a large truck or bus has difficulty turning sharp corners, particularly to the right. If the driver follows the proper procedure, vehicles facing him on the street he is entering should be prepared for the large truck or bus to enter their half of the roadway.

If the large truck operator is not following the proper procedure, vehicles on his right in the street he is leaving should stay well back to avoid being crushed between the large truck and the curb. When you see a large truck or bus making a sharp right turn, give it the room it needs. [ 9 ] Both the plaintiff and defendant testified and each filed a Trial Statement. Having carefully reviewed and weighed the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant, the Court accepts the evidence of the plaintiff. [ 10 ] The plaintiff testified in a straightforward manner and his evidence was clear.

He had a good recollection of the incident. I find that the plaintiff’s vehicle reached the intersection first, and that his vehicle was stopped in the right hand lane in order to make a right hand turn. The light was red. I further find that the plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped at the intersection when the defendant’s truck and trailer approached the intersection, in the left hand lane, and proceeded to make a right hand turn from the left lane.

With his vehicle already stopped at the intersection, there was no opportunity for the plaintiff to give the defendant’s vehicle room, or to take evasive action in order to avoid being crushed between the large truck and the curb. [ 11 ] I find that the defendant failed to drive with reasonable consideration for other persons using the road. As the plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped at the intersection when the defendant approached, the defendant should have noticed the plaintiff’s vehicle at the intersection.

I find that the defendant failed to keep a proper look out, and that he failed to see the plaintiff’s vehicle. As the defendant’s truck and trailer made its right turn, it collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle, pushing it onto the sidewalk and damaging the vehicle. CONCLUSION [ 12 ] I find that the plaintiff has met the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the accident occurred because the defendant was negligent in the operation of his vehicle.

In particular, I find that the defendant’s driving fell below the standard of care of a reasonable and prudent driver and that the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the damage to the plaintiff’s vehicle. [ 13 ] In the result, the defendant is held 100% at fault for the collision and the resulting damage to the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff shall have his costs of issuing and serving the summons. ________________________________ V.L. Monar Enweani, J