Vigneault v. Mitchell, 2025 NSSC 9
Reading time: 5 minutes (approx.)
By: Fiona Costello (Articled Clerk)
A recent decision by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court addressed the apportionment of liability arising from a motor vehicle accident near Musquodoboit Harbour on May 28, 2018. The collision occurred on West Petpeswick Road, less than 400 meters from Twin Oaks Memorial Hospital, involving a hospital employee, the Plaintiff, and a local high school student, the Defendant.
The Plaintiff had just turned right onto the road when her vehicle collided with the Defendant’s, who was exiting a parking lot. Neither driver saw the other before the impact and each driver claimed to have remained within their own lane, accusing the other of having crossed the center yellow lines. Both drivers were frequent travellers of this route, which was often narrowed due to cars parked on both sides of the road. The Plaintiff also noted that pedestrians would often be walking and opening car doors, so she would often drive closer to the center yellow line than she would on other, less congested routes.
When exiting the driveway to turn right onto the road, the Defendant described “inching” forward as her view of oncoming traffic was blocked by parked cars. The Plaintiff also stated that couldn’t see the driveway because parked cars obstructed her view. The Court found that parked cars limited both drivers’ sightlines and created physical constraints that led each of them to veer toward the centre of the road, where their vehicles collided. In the end, both vehicles were found to have been on or over the center yellow lines at the moment of impact, which directly influenced the Court’s assessment of negligence.
Under certain circumstances, deviating from one’s lane is legally justified. Nova Scotia’s Motor Vehicle Act, RSNS 1989, c293, (the Act) recognizes that it is sometimes necessary, but that such a maneuver is only lawful when it can be done safely. The court therefore examined the statutory duties imposed on drivers crossing into other lanes of traffic and considered whether the decisions made by each party met the requisite standard of care. Per the Act, drivers must travel at a careful and prudent rate of speed not greater than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to road width, traffic, surface and all other conditions at the time existing. The Act also requires drivers to keep their vehicles to the right of clearly marked double yellow lines unless other conditions – such as where the road is narrowed or obstructed – make it reasonable and prudent to do otherwise.
The Court accepted that the Plaintiff, faced with numerous parked vehicles narrowing the roadway, was not wrong to drive closer toward the center line than she would otherwise; however, the Court determined the maneuver had not complied with the Act, which prohibits a driver from departing from their lane unless they have first ensured that the movement can be made safe. The Court found that greater attentiveness would have allowed her to see the Defendant who was not only driving onto the road at a slow rate of speed but had driven far enough onto the road that she was at or over the center yellow lines. The issue was therefore not obstruction caused by parked cars, but the Plaintiff’s failure to pay sufficient attention in light of those conditions.
As for the Defendant, the Act requires drivers entering a public highway from a private driveway to yield the right of way to vehicles already on the highway. The court emphasized that the obligation to yield to vehicles already on the highway only applies in respect of vehicles that have the right of way to begin with, and as the Plaintiff was found to be driving on or over the center yellow lines without due caution, she did not have the right of way. That aside, the court found that when the Defendant was exiting the driveway, she was focused on the parked cars to her left and neglected to look to her right (the direction the Plaintiff was coming from) and, in an attempt to avoid hitting the cars on either side of the driveway entrance, she made a wide turn crossing into the Plaintiff’s lane.
The Court concluded that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant had breached their respective duties of care, and those breaches had contributed equally to the collision. Liability was therefore apportioned equally.
