Sabneet Kaur v. Alexandre LeBlanc, 2026 NBKB 041
Reading Time: 3 minutes (approx.)
By: Krista Nasartschuk
The New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench recently considered the statutory provisions and common law principles governing the level of care and responsibilities of motorists and pedestrians in the context of a personal injury case which occurred in Dieppe, New Brunswick.
The Plaintiff had been crossing the roadway between the parking lot and the Champlain Mall in Dieppe on foot when she was struck by the Defendant’s vehicle. As a result of the collision, the Plaintiff sustained a concussion, lacerations and a fractured left wrist.
The Plaintiff testified that she had stopped, looked in both directions and had allowed a different vehicle to pass by prior to proceeding across the roadway on foot. The Defendant stated that he had stopped at an intersection and had allowed pedestrians to cross at a nearby crosswalk prior to executing a left turn. While turning, the Plaintiff ran into the path of the Defendant’s vehicle.
The Court noted that conditions at the time were dark, rainy and that the Plaintiff had been wearing dark colored clothing with a hood over her head at the time of the collision. The court found that CCTV footage of the accident did not corroborate the Plaintiff’s version of events, and depicted her running into the path of the Defendant’s vehicle. The Court held that the Defendant was not liable for the collision. In doing so, Justice Ouellette cited both statutory provisions and common law principles.
The relevant statutory provisions are paragraphs 346(1) and 171(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act. These provisions state that every person who drives a motor vehicle without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the roadway commits an offence, and that every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than a crosswalk shall yield the right of way to all other vehicles on the roadway.
With respect to common law principles, Justice Ouelette cited the following:
- Hmaied v Wilkinson, 2010 BCSC 1074 as representative of the principle that motorists, in general, have a duty to keep a proper lookout and take reasonable precautions in response to apparent potential hazards.
- Walker v Brownlee and Harmon, 1952 CanLII 328 (SCC) as representative of the principle that having a statutory right of way does not negate a motorist’s obligation to keep a proper lookout, and
- Peterson v MacKenzie, 1972 CanlII 1638 (NBCA) as representative of the principle that the duty of care rests on everyone, both pedestrian and motorist, and that what constitutes reasonable care depends upon the circumstances.
Based upon the above-noted CCTV footage, the Court concluded that there was no evidence that the Defendant was driving without due care and attention or failing to keep a proper lookout. The Court found that the Plaintiff’s injuries arose solely as a result of her failure to take reasonable care of herself, noting her dark clothing, failure to yield the right-of-way to approaching vehicles and failure to pay adequate and necessary attention.
