Rebecca Sperling - v. -, 2015 SKPC 160

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN CIVIL DIVISION Citation: 2015 SKPC 160 Date: November 26, 2015 File: 78/15 Location: Yorkton _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Rebecca Sperling - and - Bobby Michael Duff Self-Represented For the Plaintiff Self-Represented For the Defendant _____________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT R. GREEN , J _____________________________________________________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] January 18, 2015 was not a nice day in the Yorkton area.

The highway conditions were foggy and icy. At 9:40 a.m., several kilometres east of Yorkton on Highway 10, Rebecca Sperling collided with the back of a snowplough driven by Bobby Michael Duff. Ms. Sperling claims that the collision resulted because of Mr. Duff’s negligence or carelessness.

II. MS. SPERLING ’S VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED [ 2 ] Ms. Sperling was driving west to Yorkton, from her home in Tomkins and with her infant child in the back seat. As she approached Yorkton, she came over a hill and could see the yellow emergency lights of a vehicle in the distance. She slowed down to 60 kilometres per hour, and could make out the snowplough from three to four vehicle lengths behind where the plough was. She said the snowplough was on the right side of the road. She said, as she approached it, the plough pulled out in front of her and she slammed on her brakes. [ 3 ] Ms.

Sperling was not able to stop and hit the snowplough on the right-hand side. She did not want to go out into the oncoming traffic or into the ditch. She viewed both of these as a less favourable alternative to what she chose: going straight ahead. [ 4 ] The collision then triggered her air bags and she next remembered being helped out of her vehicle by Mr. Duff, the snowplough operator. Mr. Duff helped her and her child into the snowplough, and then called 911. As a result, both firefighters and emergency medical personnel attended to the accident scene. Ms.

Sperling and her child were taken to the Emergency Ward at the Yorkton Hospital. She later gave a statement to the RCMP, but was not charged under The Traffic Safety Act as a result of the accident. [ 5 ] Regarding the fog, she estimated the visibility to be 100 feet, but then said she could see the snowplough from “far away”, a distance that she estimated to be six car lengths. She maintained that Mr. Duff pulled out in front of her about three car lengths in front.

On cross-examination she was asked whether the hill from which vantage she first saw the yellow blinking lights of a vehicle, could have been as far away as 900 metres from where the snowplough was, and she responded that it “could be”. III. MR. DUFF ’S VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED [ 6 ] Mr. Duff said he was operating a snowplough east of Yorkton on Highway 10, in a westbound direction. He was both sanding and ploughing snow. His plough is 12 feet wide, and has a wing (or blade) that extends a further 11 feet.

He said, as a result, his plough, with blade extended, covers at least both the 12 foot driving lane and the six foot shoulder from the white line on the highway to the grass line. [ 7 ] Mr. Duff confirmed the conditions that day were foggy. As he was driving towards Yorkton, he could see that he was about to enter an area of heavier fog. As a result, he stopped his plough in the westbound lane, to allow four vehicles behind him to pass in the oncoming lane. He viewed this as the safest alternative, given that he was about to go into dense fog.

He was worried about a collision if he waited to let these vehicles pass him. He said he then drove his snowplough forward, and, about 10 seconds later, was hit from the rear by Ms. Sperling. [ 8 ] Mr. Duff denied that he had pulled out in front of Ms. Sperling from the shoulder, describing the width of his snowplough with the wing extended, and saying, in effect, that he was already in the driving lane when he stopped as, essentially, he had no option. IV. WAS THIS ACCIDENT CAUSED BY MR.

DUFF ’S NEGLIGENCE? [ 9 ] While no charges were laid against either party under The Traffic Safety Act, as a result of this accident, the Act nevertheless contains general rules governing driving a vehicle. In particular, the following sections set out rules that are relevant to the operation of a snowplough: 224

(1) Every operator of equipment that has its warning lights in operation and is engaged in the maintenance or construction of highways may operate equipment on any portion of a highway that may be necessary for the discharge of the operator’s duties.

(2) No operator of equipment engaged in the maintenance or construction of highways shall activate its warning lights unless the equipment is on a highway.

... 233 If a vehicle is fitted with an amber beacon or flashing light, the driver shall not light the amber beacon or put the flashing light into operation unless: (

a) the vehicle is coming to a stop or is standing on a highway; (

b) it is necessary to do so for the safe operation of the vehicle; or (

c) the vehicle presents a hazard to other vehicles on the highway. [ 10 ] Having heard Mr. Duff’s evidence, I am satisfied that he was operating his snowplough in the maintenance of Highway 10, with his emergency lights flashing, as permitted and circumscribed by these sections. I further accept his evidence that he had his wing (or blade) extended, and that as a result his plough and the wing covered both the westbound lane and the shoulder. As a result, I do not accept that he pulled from the shoulder into the driving lane in front of Ms. Sperling.

Rather, I accept his evidence that he stopped in the westbound lane - reasonably I find - to allow the four vehicles to pass him, before he reached the area of denser fog where such a maneuver would, no doubt, have become even riskier. I, further, accept his evidence that he was driving forward for ten seconds after the stop before he was struck from behind by Ms. Sperling. [ 11 ] This must have been a very emotional and scary experience for Ms. Sperling, with her child present at the time of the collision.

Nevertheless, I am satisfied that she realized there was an emergency vehicle ahead of her on the highway a significant distance - as much as 900 metres - from where Mr. Duff was located. [ 12 ] Ms. Sperling argued, at the trial, that Mr. Duff should have continued ploughing towards Yorkton, until he reached the four lane highway a few kilometres away, before he let the vehicles behind him pass. I don’t accept this argument, as I am satisfied - as stated above - that he acted reasonably in stopping his plough where he did, before reaching the denser fog, to let the vehicles behind him pass. V.

CONCLUSION [ 13 ] Taken together, I am not satisfied that Mr. Duff drove his snowplough, in the midst of some very challenging conditions, in an unreasonable or negligent manner. Because I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Duff was negligent in the manner he operated his snowplough, or that this accident was caused by any negligence on his part, this action is dismissed. There will be no order for costs. R. Green, J