R. v. Schnurr Date:, 2013 BCPC 124

Citation: R. v. Schnurr Date: 20130516 2013 BCPC 0124 File No: AH 61625615 Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA R. v. SHANE SCHNURR REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE JUDICIAL JUSTICE BLACKSTONE Counsel for Defendant : S.Gibson

Place of Hearing: Abbotsford , B.C. Date of Hearing: March 4, 2013 Date of Judgment: May 16, 2013 [ 1 ] Shane Schnurr was driving his Hyundai Station wagon on a busy street in Langley, B.C. There were two lanes going south and two lanes going north. With him were his wife and two children. While proceeding to make a left hand turn at a light controlled intersection, the Hyundai was struck midsection on the passenger side by a white Chevrolet pickup. The Chevrolet pickup was in the curb lane. [ 2 ] There was considerable damage to the Schnurr vehicle. Mr.

Schnurr, his wife and children received various injuries; they were taken away by ambulance. Shannon Schnurr was air lifted to hospital. [ 3 ] The pickup driven by Brad White struck the Schnurr vehicle, jumped the curb, struck a metal railed fence and sheared off a hydro pole. Mr. White although banged up attended the hospital later with a sore back. [ 4 ] Police attended the scene of the collision as did Hydro crews. The intersection was closed until the pole was replaced.

There were no independent witnesses. [ 5 ] Shane Schnurr was given a violation ticket for failing to yield right of way on a left turn. [ 6 ] An interesting wrinkle to this scenario is, at the intersection, at the very same time the Schnurr vehicle approached the intersection with a green light, going south, there was another vehicle; a Ford F 150 super cab pickup that approached the intersection with the green light, going north. Both vehicles entered the intersection simultaneously making opposite left hand turns.

Because of the size of the super cab the Hyundai had to stop, creep forward and then complete its turn. It was at this moment the collision occurred. [ 7 ] It will be helpful at this point to read the

section of the Motor Vehicle Act.

Section 174: When a vehicle is in an intersection and its driver intends to turn left, the driver must yield the right of way to traffic approaching from the opposite direction that is in the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard but having yielded and given a signal as required by sections 171 and 172, the driver may turn the vehicle to the left, and the traffic approaching the intersection from the opposite direction must yield the right of way to the vehicle making the left turn. [ 8 ] The issues before the court are: • Was the Chevrolet pickup obscured from sight by the presence of the Ford F 150? • Was the Chevrolet pickup so close as to constitute an immediate hazard? • Did Shane Schnurr fail to yield to approaching traffic pursuant to Sec. 174 MVA? • Was the Chevrolet pickup obscured from sight by the presence of the Ford F 150? [ 9 ] The crown called as a witness the driver of the left turning, Ford 150 super cab pickup.

His evidence paints a picture of both vehicles approaching the intersection and moving continuously into left hand turns. He said neither one of them stopped. The day after the incident he told police the Hyundai turned into the path of the Chevrolet. The vehicles were going about 15 to 20 kph or less. There were no other vehicles that he remembered. He was on site for a short time and had to leave for an appointment. He told police traffic was doing the speed limit. [ 10 ] On cross examination further clarification established that he did not see the incident, he was busy finishing his turn and heard the crash.

Further questions put to him about speed regarding the Hyundai and the White Chevrolet cause me to conclude that he did not witness any critical part of the incident that would assist the court. [ 11 ] Crown called Cpl Hilliard a Collision Reconstructionist. He was consulted by the investigating officer to assist in deciphering the Collision Investigation Report of John Lawrence a Mechanical Engineer – Exhibit 30. [ 12 ] There was no physical evidence such as fluids, debris or tire marks from the scene for Cpl Hilliard to work with.

The RCMP Integrated Collision Analysis and Reconstruction Services were not called to the scene. [ 13 ] Cpl Hilliard produced two computer drawings based on speeds and distances provided by the Collision Investigation Report from data downloaded from the air bag control module. Exhibit 34 shows three different possible locations of the White pickup based on a speed 67-69 kph established by the air bag control module, assuming the Hyundai was in the intersection partially completing the left turn. At 70 meters and 3.75 seconds the pickup was not visible.

This is significant – 3.7 seconds is the formulaic point where Mr. Schnurr is assumed to have made the decision to accelerate and finish the left turn. [ 14 ] Exhibit 35 shows the Hyundai further back into the center lane just entering the intersection. At 11.4 meters there was a clear sight line and at 70 meters. I reject the proposition in Exhibit 35; there is no evidence to indicate the Hyundai commenced its turn so far back.

[ 15 ] The evidence of Shane Schnurr is that he crept into the intersection after stopping. He saw the full size F 150 pickup turning west. He was looking back and forth up the side street to the left and up 200th St. (which would be south.) He described it as stopped and inched forward looking for oncoming. He almost cleared the intersection but was hit in the northbound curb lane. They were hit so hard they spun around and were shoved up the side street into a pole. [ 16 ] The driver of the Chevrolet pickup Brad White, in his evidence in chief confirms there was a truck stopped in the intersection turning left.

The first time he saw the vehicle he struck was when it was directly in front of him. There was no visual contact as he approached the intersection. He agreed that his vision was obscured by the left turning pickup. On cross examination his recollection was that the large pickup was stopped in the intersection. He did not know if the Hyundai was stopped or moving. He could not see what it was doing. [ 17 ] The Collision Investigation Report of John Lawrence, Professional Engineer is comprehensive.

He uses notes and photographs of the damage to both vehicles taken by a colleague, photographs taken at the scene of the collision and electronic crash data downloaded from the airbag control module. [ 18 ] Once the airbag is deployed the control module is locked and retains the data until downloaded using software. In this case there were two recorded crash events. The collision with the Hyundai did not deploy the air bags – a non-deployment event. A non- deployment event may contain pre-crash and crash data. The second event, the crash with the hydro pole, followed 1.2 seconds later.

Event two was a Deployment event. A deployment event may contain pre-crash and crash data. Both events were recorded and saved by the airbag control module. [ 19 ] Table 1 pre-crash data downloaded from the airbag control module contains data at 5 second intervals. Starting at -2.5 seconds to -0.5 seconds the speed of the Chevrolet was recorded at 42 mph to 37 mph or 67 to 69 kph. It is this speed that Mr. Lawrence used to produce figure 4 which shows a sight line from the Hyundai to the Chevrolet pickup, at that point the field of vision of Shane Schnurr was obscured.

The distance was about 70 meters away. [ 20 ] I conclude the Chevrolet pickup was obscured from sight by the presence of the Ford F 150. [ 21 ] Was the Chevrolet pickup so close as to constitute an immediate hazard? [ 22 ] Exhibit 34 and table 1 of Exhibit 30 attribute the location of the Chevrolet pickup to be a distance of 70 meters from the intersection at the time Schnurr decided to accelerate through the left turn and exit the intersection. [ 23 ] One of the essential elements of the offence is “traffic approaching from the opposite direction that is in the intersection ….” Mr.

White’s pickup was not in the intersection. [ 24 ] A second essential element is “... or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard ...” [ 25 ] Previous courts have considered and defined an immediate hazard for us. Dawes v. Valadas (2005) 142 A.C.W.S.(3d) 702 ( B.C.S.C.) A vehicle presents “an immediate hazard” if it is so close to the intersection when a driver is about to make a left turn that if the turn were made the approaching driver would have to take some sudden or violent action to avoid a threat of a collision.

Speed and distance will determine what constitutes an immediate hazard. [ 26 ] Exhibit 30 contends the distance was 70 meters from the intersection when the decision to turn was made. [ 27 ] I conclude the Chevrolet pickup driven by Brad White was not an immediate hazard. [ 28 ] Did Shane Schnurr making a left turn, fail to yield to approaching traffic pursuant to Sec. 174 MVA? [ 29 ] There were no independent witnesses to this collision. Both drivers gave evidence at trial. Brad White gave evidence he didn’t see the Hyundai until it was directly in front of him.

His vision was obscured by the left turning pickup. When he struck the Hyundai it was close to being perpendicular to him. [ 30 ] Shane Schnurr gave evidence of signaling, of stopping before the intersection, of stopping in the intersection, of inching forward. He looked both ways – back and forth. He was looking for oncoming traffic. He did not see the pickup prior to the collision. [ 31 ] The Collision Investigation Report – Exhibit 30 was valuable to the court. The information produced for the court from the data contained in the airbag control module was compelling.

Even though the speeds and distances from the intersection were approximations I do have a reasonable doubt. I am not satisfied that all the essential elements of the

section were met. [ 32 ] I find Shane Schnurr not guilty of failing to yield on a left turn

Section 174 M.V.A. __________________ I Blackstone Judicial Justice