Collusion at Fault Rules: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
17] The Fault Determination Rules[6]<ref name="Reg668"/>, although not binding on tort actions, apportion liability in a rear-end collision at one-hundred percent (100%) for the driver of the rear vehicle and zero percent (0%) for the driver of the lead vehicle. | 17] The Fault Determination Rules[6]<ref name="Reg668"/>, although not binding on tort actions, apportion liability in a rear-end collision at one-hundred percent (100%) for the driver of the rear vehicle and zero percent (0%) for the driver of the lead vehicle. | ||
[18] Canadian courts have consistently found, generally speaking, the operator of a rear vehicle at fault for rear-end collisions.[7]<ref name="Beaumont"/><ref="Iannarella"/> | [18] Canadian courts have consistently found, generally speaking, the operator of a rear vehicle at fault for rear-end collisions.[7]<ref name="Beaumont"/><ref name="Iannarella"/> | ||
[19] The common law principle of fault attribution to the rear vehicle in rear-end collisions is not absolute and is subject to a careful examination of whether the rear-driver and, by necessity, the lead-driver were acting reasonably in the circumstances.[8]<ref name="Martin"/> | [19] The common law principle of fault attribution to the rear vehicle in rear-end collisions is not absolute and is subject to a careful examination of whether the rear-driver and, by necessity, the lead-driver were acting reasonably in the circumstances.[8]<ref name="Martin"/> | ||
Revision as of 15:12, 5 July 2022
Fault Determination Rules, RRO 1990, Reg 668[1]
Sobh v RBC General Ins., 2016 ONSC 7382 (CanLII)[2]
17] The Fault Determination Rules[6][1], although not binding on tort actions, apportion liability in a rear-end collision at one-hundred percent (100%) for the driver of the rear vehicle and zero percent (0%) for the driver of the lead vehicle.
[18] Canadian courts have consistently found, generally speaking, the operator of a rear vehicle at fault for rear-end collisions.[7][3][4]
[19] The common law principle of fault attribution to the rear vehicle in rear-end collisions is not absolute and is subject to a careful examination of whether the rear-driver and, by necessity, the lead-driver were acting reasonably in the circumstances.[8][5]
[20] RBC has filed a series of cases where Courts of Appeal have seen fit to apportion liability in rear-end collisions. Examples include: (i) where a truck is parked in the middle of the road because it ran out of gas[9][6]; (ii) where a vehicle is stopped in the middle of a road in a winter storm to check the brakes[10][7]; and (iii) where a vehicle comes to an unexplained sudden stop.[11][8]
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Fault Determination Rules, RRO 1990, Reg 668, <http://canlii.ca/t/53ggp> retrieved on 2020-12-01
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Sobh v RBC General Ins., 2016 ONSC 7382 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gwllc>, retrieved on 2022-07-05
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Beaumont v. Ruddy, 1932 CanLII 147 (ON CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/g139s>, retrieved on 2022-07-05
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Iannarella v. Corbett,< 2015 ONCA 110 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/ggbk3>, retrieved on 2022-07-05
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Martin-Vandenhende v. Myslik, 2012 ONCA 53 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/fpsgc>, retrieved on 2022-07-05
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Irvine v. Metropolitan Transport Co. Ltd., 1933 CanLII 109 (ON CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/g1h03>, retrieved on 2022-07-05
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Findlay v. Diver, 1992 CanLII 7537 (ON CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/g1cfq>, retrieved on 2022-07-05
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Kim v. Salzl, 1994 CanLII 1851 (BC CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/1dd07>, retrieved on 2022-07-05
