Rathi Mala Sabaratnam - v. -, 2011 SKPC 174

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN CIVIL DIVISION Citation: 2011 SKPC 174 Date: November 9, 2011 File: 11-0401 Location: Prince Albert _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Rathi Mala Sabaratnam - and - Barbara Michel Self For the Plaintiff Self For the Defendant _____________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT M. M. BANIAK , J _____________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION

[ 1 ] The Plaintiff claims against the Defendant for $350.00 - 50% of the Plaintiff’s deductible - and the cost of the summons being $20.00. The Defendant denies total responsibility for the accident, but admits 50% liability. The parties represented themselves. FACTS [ 2 ] The Plaintiff was proceeding east on 28 th Street towards 2 nd Avenue in the City of Prince Albert. The date was February 18, 2011 and the time was around 6:00 p.m.

The Defendant was also proceeding in the same direction and when the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped for the light it was struck from behind by the Defendant’s vehicle. [ 3 ] The Plaintiff, Rathi Mala Sabaratnam, testified that as she was approaching the intersection of 28 th Street and 2 nd Avenue the “countdown” was in progress and the number was clicking from 1 to 0. She stopped her vehicle as the light was switching from orange to red. At that point, the Plaintiff testified, she was struck from behind by the Defendant who was unable to stop. The damage to her vehicle was slight - she described it as “cosmetic”.

Neither she, nor her two daughters, who were passengers in the car, suffered any physical injuries. [ 4 ] The Defendant, Barbara Michel, testified that the previous day she purchased a new car and on the day of the accident she asked her sister, Debra Michel, to come for a ride. She was following the Plaintiff’s vehicle. As she approached the intersection at 28 th Street and 2 nd Avenue she slowed to 30 km/hr. She testified that she noticed the vehicle in front of her backing up but she was unable to stop her vehicle in time as “it was icy” and “I panicked”.

Immediately after the collision, she asked her sister, who was pregnant at the time, if she was okay. Having received a positive reply, she proceeded to call the police. Her vehicle was not driveable. In cross- examination, the Defendant testified that she was about 1 ½ vehicles distance behind the Plaintiff. [ 5 ] The Defendant called her sister, Debra Michel, to testify. She also testified that they were approaching the intersection. The Plaintiff’s vehicle appeared to be backing up and they were unable to stop in time. [ 6 ] The Plaintiff was adamant that she did not back up her vehicle.

When asked the same question by the police at the accident scene, she also stated that she was in a stationary position once she came to a full stop at the intersection. ANALYSIS Relevant Legislation [ 7 ] The Traffic Safety Act , c. T-18.1, S.S.: 199(3) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and safe in the circumstances. 225(1)No driver of a vehicle on a highway shall follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable having regard to: (

a) the speed of the other vehicle; (

b) the amount and nature of traffic on the highway; and

(

c) the condition of the highway. 235(3) If a traffic light at an intersection displays only an amber light: (

a) the driver of a vehicle facing the light shall stop at the crosswalk, but, if the vehicle cannot be brought to a stop with safety, the driver may drive cautiously through the intersection; [ 8 ] From the evidence, it is clear that the Plaintiff was driving in a prudent and responsible manner having regard to the road conditions. When she approached the intersection of 28 th Street and 2 nd Avenue she noticed that the traffic light was amber and took steps to bring her vehicle to a stop.

Just as she came to a stop the light changed from amber to red. [ 9 ] The Defendant, it appears, misjudged the condition of the road and followed the Plaintiff’s vehicle too closely (1 ½ vehicles).

When the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped, the Defendant was unable to stop on the icy roadway and collided with the vehicle ahead of her. [ 10 ] Under the circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff contributed to the accident, and, accordingly, I find that the Defendant was totally responsible for the accident. [ 11 ] The Plaintiff shall have judgment for $350.00 together with costs of $20.00. [ 12 ] Dated at the City of Prince Albert, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this 9 th day of November, A.D. 2011. __________________________________ M. M. Baniak, J