Driving related decisions by the courts.
In this case Mr. Dhaliwal struck a 77 year old pedestrian and then failed to remain and render assistance as required. The pedestrian, Douglas Hull, came to rest under a van and was not discovered for about 25 minutes. He was conscious and alert when found but later died in hospital. The occupants of Mr.
This case involves a collision that happened at an intersection where one street is controlled by traffic lights and the cross street by stop signs. Dr. Schlappner stopped at the stop sign, saw that the traffic lights were red and proceeded to cross the intersection. While he was crossing, the traffic signal turned green and a vehicle driven by Mrs. Serfas proceeded and collided with him.
This case involves a collision where one of the drivers involved was making a left turn at an intersection. That driver, Madame Moreno Munoz was charged for failing to yield on left turn. The trial examines the concept of "immediate hazard" and whether the left turning driver or the driver proceeding toward the left turn driver is required to yield to the other based on the immediate hazard involved.
In this case Mr. Roberts fell asleep at the wheel and left the roadway. During investigation of the event he told police that he had been partying late at night and had consumed alcohol. There was not sufficient evidence to convict him of impaired driving, although the reasons why are not discussed. Mr.
In this B.C. Supreme Court case Mr. Lambert is appealing his conviction on a traffic ticket for speeding at 126 km/h in a posted 90 km/h speed zone. He raised the following points in his appeal:
This decision of the B.C. Supreme Court examines the situation where two opposing vehicles approach an uncontrolled intersection. One is turning left (Swartz) and the other is proceeding straight through (Najdychor).
This is a case of failing to stop for a red light with evidence produced from a red light camera. Mr. Eged, a lawyer, attempts to have the charge quashed.
Wendy Dubbin was charged for failing to wear her seatbelt while using Highway 5 near Kamloops. She challenged the ticket under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms saying that seatbelts are dangerous because she might be injured or killed in an incident that she might survive if she was not wearing one.
This is a Small Claims Court case where Mr. Lee is attempting to recover damages from Mr. Cheuck following a minor motor vehicle collision where ICBC found both parties partially at fault. Both parties were proceeding in the same direction some distance apart. Both intended to turn right at the intersection ahead. Mr.
In this case Mr. Gotsutsov's vehicle was destroyed by fire. ICBC found nothing in its investigations to substantiate Mr. Gotsutsov’s involvement in the loss of the vehicle by fire. ICBC however maintains that insurance coverage under the policy is forfeited because Mr. Gotsutsov allegedly made a willfully false statement in respect of the claim.