Ian Stecyk - v. -, 2012 SKPC 83

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN CIVIL DIVISION Citation: 2012 SKPC 083 Date: May 23, 2012 File: 37/12 Location: Melville _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Ian Stecyk - and - Chad Zulyniak and Don Zulyniak Self For the Plaintiff Self For the Defendants _____________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT R. GREEN , J ______________________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ian Stecyk and Chad Zulyniak are students at Melville Comprehensive School. Don Zulyniak is Chad’s father.

Ian and Chad literally ran into each other on February 10, 2012 in Melville. Chad was driving his father’s vehicle north on Queen Street. He signalled a right-hand turn, and then drove off of Queen Street at a 45 degree angle toward a lane which runs at a similar angle in a northeast direction away from Queen Street. Ian was coming out of the Melville Tourism building parking lot that adjoins the east side of Queen Street. Immediately before the collision, Ian was driving at a 45 degree angle northwest across the parking lot, and was

preparing to turn north onto Queen Street. [ 2 ] The collision between the two - with each traveling at a 45 degree angle to the east of Queen Street, and with Chad going north-east and Ian going north-west - occurred a number of feet back from Queen Street. The rear passenger side area of Chad’s vehicle collided with the driver’s side front bumper of Ian’s vehicle. Ian claims the accident happened because of Chad’s negligence, and sues for his deductible of $300.00. Chad denies any negligence and says the accident happened because of Ian’s negligence. Ian denies any contributory negligence on his part.

As a result, the question I must determine is whether Ian has proved, on a balance of probabilities, that this accident occurred because of Chad’s negligence. [ 3 ] The Traffic Safety Act regulates the safe operation of motor vehicles in Saskatchewan. In doing so, it sets out statutory rules for driving in different circumstances.

I view the relevant provisions of that Act , in this case, to be from s. 219: Rules re yielding right of way 219(1) If two vehicles arrive at an intersection at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right. ...

(4) Before entering a highway, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way to vehicles on the highway. ...

(6) No driver of a vehicle shall enter or cross a highway or a sidewalk from a private road or driveway or a lane or alley unless the driver yields the right of way to pedestrians and vehicles approaching from the sidewalk or highway. [ 4 ] The pictures filed of the scene of the accident show there are no painted lines visible on Queen Street or the parking lot to the tourism building or the lane Chad was entering. As a result, it is not possible to say exactly where the lane begins - whether directly as an extension off of Queen Street or whether off of the parking lot to the Melville Tourism building.

Ian argues that Chad used a part of the parking lot as a 45 degree “off ramp” from Queen Street to the lane, rather than turning at a 90 degree angle off of Queen Street toward the entrance of the lane. Chad argues that Ian should have approached Queen Street perpendicular, and at a right angle to it, rather than at a 45 degree angle which cut him across Chad’s path. [ 5 ] This is a case where two of the provisions in s. 219 of The Traffic Safety Act would produce different results depending on how the accident is viewed.

To excuse the pun, it might be said these two subsections “collide”, depending on my findings. On one hand, if this accident occurred solely within the parking lot, and therefore without any relevance being given to Chad having turned off of Queen Street, s. 219(1) suggests that Chad should have yielded the right of way to Ian, who was on his right.

However, if Chad was driving directly from Queen Street to the lane as he exited from that street (which is a “highway” under the Act ), he was “approaching from a highway” within the meaning of s. 219(6), and Ian was obligated to yield to him under that subsection, which I am satisfied is the subsection that applies to the driving Ian was doing in this parking lot. [ 6 ] I am sure this was a stressful event for both young men. Both attended the trial with a parent. Both took a strong position asserting the accident was not their fault.

Because I find it is as likely as not that Chad was turning off of Queen Street onto the adjacent lane, as opposed to simply driving within a parking lot, I am satisfied that it is as likely as not that Ian was obligated under s. 219(6) to yield to Chad who was approaching from a “highway” within the meaning of the Act . As a result, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Chad was negligent or careless in driving as he did. [ 7 ] Ian’s action is dismissed. I make no order as to costs. I hope that both of these young men can move forward from this incident.

R. Green, J