Lack of attentiveness may be considered the primary cause of the accident
The Supreme Court of British Columbia has ruled that lack of attentiveness to the possibility of cyclists in a marked bike lane may, on a balance of probabilities, be considered the primary cause of an accident.
The events in Steinebach v. Skittrell, 2022 BCSC 89 happened on Mother’s Day 2014. Mark Steinebach was cycling in the designated bike lane in an unusually busy intersection when he collided with a car driven by Katherine Skittrell. Skittrell acknowledged that she had only looked at her rear-view mirror prior to making her turn and did not check her “blind spot.” She argued, however, that Steinebach was cycling too fast, having passed several vehicles unsafely before colliding with her vehicle as she properly executed her turn.
Justice Ardith Walkem, the author of this decision, said that there is a mutual obligation on cyclists and drivers to show reasonable care and attention for other users of the road. But “where there is a marked bike lane, the starting presumption should be that there may be a cyclist travelling in that lane, and a turn across a bike lane is only appropriate after a driver confirms that the lane is free and not occupied,” she said.
The trial judge concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, Skittrell’s lack of attentiveness to the possibility of cyclists in the dedicated bike lane and her failure to check her blind spot was the primary cause of the accident.
But, contrary to his assertion, the trial judge held that Steinebach also bore some responsibility. Considering the unusually busy traffic that day, a reasonable and situationally aware cyclist should have slowed and exercised caution, said the court.
Thus, the court apportioned 15 per cent of the liability to Steinebach and 85 per cent to Skittrell.
Skittrell argued that Steinebach’s pre-existing injuries as well as an intervening cycling accident in 2015 contributed to the injuries caused by the accident.
While pre-existing conditions may be inherent in Steinebach’s “original position,” Skittrell “need not compensate [him] for any debilitating effects of a pre-existing condition that [he] would have experienced anyway,” said the court.
The trial judge reduced non-pecuniary damages and future income loss by 20 per cent due to the possibility that Steinebach would have suffered a certain level of pain and disability due to the pre-existing conditions. But the court nevertheless found that since the 2014 accident “caused injuries and created vulnerabilities that made [Steinebach] susceptible to the 2015 cycling accident”, the injuries from latter was indivisible from and causally connected to the former.
