Lindsey Schmidt - v. -, 2015 SKPC 159

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN CIVIL DIVISION Citation: 2015 SKPC 159 Date: November 26, 2015 File: 65/15 Location: Yorkton _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Lindsey Schmidt - and - Julie Sparks Self-Represented For the Plaintiff Self-Represented For the Defendant _____________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT R. GREEN , J _____________________________________________________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] April 19, 2015 was a clear and otherwise nice day in Yorkton.

Lindsey Schmidt was buying gas at the Co-op Gas Station on the north side of Broadway Street West. Julie Sparks was paying her power bill across the street at SaskPower, on the south side of this street. Both emerged in their vehicles at about the same time, approaching Broadway Street from the exit to each parking lot, on the opposite side of the street from each other. Neither driver was facing a stop sign. Ms. Schmidt was seeking to turn left and go east on Broadway, while Ms. Sparks was seeking to turn left and go west. Unfortunately, they collided in the middle of the street.

[ 2 ] Ms. Schmidt claims that the accident was caused by Ms. Sparks’ negligence. Ms. Sparks denies this. [ 3 ] Each party testified. Ms. Sparks, as well, had her ten year old granddaughter, who was present in her vehicle when the accident occurred, testify. Each party provided pictures of this area of the street, from the Internet, and pictures of the damage to her vehicle. II. THE ACCIDENT ACCORDING TO MS. SCHMIDT [ 4 ] Ms. Schmidt said she was waiting for the traffic to clear, and then went out into the middle of the street, waiting for a vehicle coming from the west of her to pass.

After that vehicle went by, she proceeded toward the eastbound lane on Broadway. She said, while stopped in the middle, she was on an angle facing south. She said, while she was stopped in the middle, the defendant came from the other side of the street, and in the course of turning left ran into her in the rear portion of the driver’s side of her vehicle. [ 5 ] Ms. Schmidt said both drivers then pulled into the SaskPower parking lot, and she got out to look at the damage. She said Ms. Sparks did not get out. She provided her name, driver’s licence and phone number to Ms. Sparks, and said Ms.

Sparks provided this to her when she asked for it. She admitted that she had contacted Ms. Sparks later that day by telephone, and was angry with her. She claimed that Ms. Sparks apologized to her when they spoke in the SaskPower parking lot. III. THE ACCIDENT ACCORDING TO MS. SPARKS [ 6 ] Ms. Sparks said that it was she, and not Ms. Schmidt, who reached the centre of the street first and stopped, waiting to turn left and go west on Broadway. She said there was construction on the north side of the street, and as a result there was just one lane open that she could go into.

She said she pulled to the middle, stopped, and then Ms. Schmidt drove from the Co-op parking lot across the street and collided with her while she was stopped. [ 7 ] Ms. Sparks said her vehicle was damaged on the front side of the hood on the driver’s side. After the collision, Ms. Schmidt suggested they drive over to the SaskPower parking lot and she returned there. She said she wasn’t able to get out of her vehicle there because of how close Ms. Schmidt parked to her. She said, later that day, that Ms. Schmidt telephoned her and was very loud and angry with her, essentially suggesting that the accident was Ms.

Sparks’ fault. She claimed that Ms. Schmidt was in a big hurry, and this is what caused the collision. She denied having any conversation with her granddaughter at the time the accident occurred. [ 8 ] Sahia Luce testified, upon promising to tell the truth. She said she was with her grandmother in the back seat, when her grandmother drove to the middle of the street, and then watched the traffic go by. She said that Ms. Schmidt came from the other side of the street and scraped their vehicle. She said that both drivers then rolled down their window and she heard Ms.

Schmidt say: “Sorry, are you okay little girl?” Sahia responded: “I am fine”. She denied having any conversation with her grandmother at or just before the time the accident occurred. Later that day, at her grandmother’s, she overheard both sides of a telephone conversation between her grandmother and Ms. Schmidt, and could overhear Ms. Schmidt, at the other end, calling her grandmother a liar. IV. WAS THE ACCIDENT CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF MS.

SPARKS? [ 9 ] Section 219(4) of The Traffic Safety Act provides that, before entering a highway, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way to vehicles on the highway. Broadway Street West is such a highway, and the question becomes whether I am able to determine from the evidence who failed to yield. I am not satisfied that I can. [ 10 ] Both parties - in direct contradiction - claimed they were the first into the middle of the street. Both claimed they proceeded halfway across and stopped, to wait for the traffic to clear so as to allow a left hand turn onto the street.

Both claimed the other driver came across the street and struck them, as they waited. If I accept the version of one party over the other, it follows that the other party

failed to yield and was negligent. However, while both versions cannot be true, I am not sure which one to believe. [ 11 ] In my view, Ms. Sparks’ evidence, taken together with that of her granddaughter, is at least as believable as that of Ms. Schmidt. Whether Ms. Schmidt was the first to get out of her vehicle after the accident or whether she yelled at Ms. Sparks by telephone later that day is really of no consequence in deciding between the two versions. Nor are the pictures filed by each party, as there is no doubt the vehicles made contact on the driver’s side of each vehicle. V.

CONCLUSION [ 12 ] Because I accept that Ms. Sparks’ version is as believable as that of Ms. Schmidt, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Ms. Sparks was negligent or the cause of this accident. This action is dismissed. There will be no order for costs. R. Green, J