The case of Heffernan v Chahal involves a collision following a right turn onto 152 Street from 82 Avenue in Surrey. Richard Heffernan stopped at the red light to turn right onto 152 Street. When the light for traffic on 82 Avenue turned yellow, he made the turn.
Navdeep Chanal was driving in traffic using the right hand lane of 82 Avenue as he approached the intersection. Those vehicles turned right onto 152 Street and he proceeded straight though, colliding with the rear of Mr. Heffernan's van just past the intersection.
Issues to be Resolved
Madam Justice Sukstorf had to resolve three issues: the location of the collision, whether Mr. Chahal drove through the intersection without due care and whether Mr. Heffernan made his right turn safely and in accordance with the traffic rules.
Location of the Collision
The justice found that the collision occurred after Mr. Heffernan had turned right and was between the intersection and the bus stop. This was supported by the fact that collision damage at the rear of van was centred on the rear and did not involve the driver's side.
Driving Without Due Care
Mr. Chahal was travelling too fast for the conditions for that time of day in a busy intersection during the morning rush hour, which required a heightened level of care. He should have had enough time to adjust his speed and slow down to accommodate the Savana.
Making a Safe Right Turn
Mr. Heffernan had an increased requirement to act with care because of the traffic in those circumstances. He needed to account for any vehicles that would be proceeding along 152 Street which included accounting for the lag in acceleration of his heavily loaded vehicle as he entered the throughway.
Discussion of Right of Way
This decision examines the right of way for vehicles travelling through an intersection and of a driver making a right turn. What is interesting here is the duty of Mr. Chahal to yield and let Mr. Heffernan turn right.
Decision
Both drivers were found to be liable for the collision.
By Mr. Chahal’s own admission, he did not leave enough time and space to stop his Mustang safely, despite acknowledging that he saw the Savana turn into the lane he was travelling in. I found it concerning that the last time he checked the traffic light was when he was 200 meters away from the intersection. He told the court that when the White Van turned right, he saw the Savana, but the fact that he didn’t check the colour of the traffic light as he proceeded through the busy intersection at rush hour, is problematic. Since he did see the Savana in advance, and well prior to entering the intersection, I do not find that the existence of the Savana proceeding slowly in his lane was unexpected or unforeseeable.
Although I accept the evidence of the plaintiff that he did not see the defendant’s vehicle proceeding along the curb lane, I still find that his action was a departure from the standard of care imposed on motorists. He was at a red light and he had an obligation to ensure that he was attentive to the vehicles proceeding through in the lane. He made the deliberate decision to turn right on the red light and this is what precipitated the accident.
Liability for the collision was decided to be 90% for Mr. Chahal and 10% for Mr. Heffernan.
Share This Article
- Log in to post comments