Fail to Yield - Driveway: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
[27] The Justice of the Peace carefully summarized the prosecution and defence evidence, then considered all of the evidence “in its entirety” along with the submissions of counsel in coming to a final conclusion. The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the prohibited act. He turned into the path of an oncoming vehicle in circumstances that created an immediate hazard. That finding was reasonably supported by the whole of the evidence including the circumstances of the collision and portions of the accused’s own testimony about the impact. | [27] The Justice of the Peace carefully summarized the prosecution and defence evidence, then considered all of the evidence “in its entirety” along with the submissions of counsel in coming to a final conclusion. The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the prohibited act. He turned into the path of an oncoming vehicle in circumstances that created an immediate hazard. That finding was reasonably supported by the whole of the evidence including the circumstances of the collision and portions of the accused’s own testimony about the impact. | ||
(...) | |||
[30] The s.139 HTA duty to yield requires that a driver determine whether entry into the roadway would constitute an immediate hazard to oncoming traffic. The fact that others are disobeying speed laws does not entitle the driver entering the roadway to disregard s.139. <b><u><span style=background:yellow>The driver must look and assess all oncoming traffic, judge the speed of the other vehicles, the size and actions of those vehicles, the road conditions, visibility, and any other relevant factor to determine whether it would be safe to enter the roadway. <b><u></span> | |||
<ref name="Hayward"><i>R. v. Hayward,</i> 2018 ONCJ 105 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/hqh5p>, retrieved on 2023-05-16</ref> | <ref name="Hayward"><i>R. v. Hayward,</i> 2018 ONCJ 105 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/hqh5p>, retrieved on 2023-05-16</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 18:30, 16 May 2023
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-11-23 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 2204 |
| Page Categories: | Highway Traffic |
| Citation: | Fail to Yield - Driveway, CLNP 2204, <https://rvt.link/5s>, retrieved on 2024-11-23 |
| Editor: | MKent |
| Last Updated: | 2023/05/16 |
Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076
Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today
R. v. Hayward, 2018 ONCJ 105 (CanLII)[1]
[24] Both parties agree that Failure to Yield contrary to s.139 of the Highway Traffic Act is a strict liability offence – R v Dillman 2008 ONCJ 101. The prosecution must prove that the accused committed the prohibited act beyond a reasonable doubt. It is then open to the accused to show, on the balance of probabilities, that he or she took all reasonable care to avoid creating the hazard.
(...)
[26] The Crown submitted that this trial was not really about proof of the actus reus as the evidence at trial including the accused’s own evidence showed he turned directly into the path of a speeding motorcycle and was hit almost immediately after he entered that lane. The only issue on those facts was due diligence. The defence submitted that the Crown failed to prove the prohibited act as the accused entered into a clear lane. It was the extreme speed of the motorcycle that caused it to appear in that lane, close the distance of beyond 200 feet to 20 feet without being seen, then crash into the accused’s vehicle.
[27] The Justice of the Peace carefully summarized the prosecution and defence evidence, then considered all of the evidence “in its entirety” along with the submissions of counsel in coming to a final conclusion. The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the prohibited act. He turned into the path of an oncoming vehicle in circumstances that created an immediate hazard. That finding was reasonably supported by the whole of the evidence including the circumstances of the collision and portions of the accused’s own testimony about the impact.
(...)
[30] The s.139 HTA duty to yield requires that a driver determine whether entry into the roadway would constitute an immediate hazard to oncoming traffic. The fact that others are disobeying speed laws does not entitle the driver entering the roadway to disregard s.139. The driver must look and assess all oncoming traffic, judge the speed of the other vehicles, the size and actions of those vehicles, the road conditions, visibility, and any other relevant factor to determine whether it would be safe to enter the roadway.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 R. v. Hayward, 2018 ONCJ 105 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/hqh5p>, retrieved on 2023-05-16
