Morrisey v. Bulmer, 2026 NSSC 92
Reading time: 5 minutes (approx.)
By: Hayley Gardner (Articled Clerk)
On October 15, 2016, a group of friends set out on their all-terrain vehicles to check out the state of some of the ATV trails in the area of Belmont Mountain in Nova Scotia. Confusion ensued after the friends inadvertently split up and lost track of each other. It was dusk, and daylight was fading. The friends were eventually reunited when, unfortunately, three of their ATVs collided with one another.
The three ATVs involved in the accident were being operated by:
- Plaintiff Tyler Murray, with Plaintiff Matthew Morrisey riding as passenger
- Defendant Josh Bulmer, riding alone
- Defendant Jaden Dean, with Jeremy McNutt riding as passenger
To simplify the litigation, the parties agreed to split the issues of liability and damages and proceed first with a hearing on liability alone.
For the most part, the friends shared the same account of the events leading up to the accident. Defendant Bulmer had departed camp on his ATV before the rest of the group, and the others were not sure which direction he had gone in. The Plaintiffs were travelling directly behind Defendant Dean on a gravel roadway when the two ATVs reached a slight crest in the road. It was at this point that they located Bulmer, who was travelling in the opposite direction, when Dean and Bulmer suddenly collided. Bulmer was thrown or jumped from his ATV, and the empty vehicle continued over the crest and struck the Plaintiffs’ ATV.
The key point of contention was the location of Dean’s and Bulmer’s ATVs at the time of their collision. Although the Plaintiffs were not within view of the ATVs when the initial contact occurred, they both testified that Dean had been driving well within the right-hand lane in the seconds leading up to it. Much of the testimony of the involved parties was marred by credibility issues. The Court heard that Bulmer had hidden out in the woods for some time after the accident to avoid being questioned by the police. Similarly, Dean had failed to tell the police that he was even involved in the crash until the following day, because he naively believed that his friend, Bulmer, would simply accept responsibility and reimburse him for the damage to his ATV.
The parties advanced competing experts in the field of accident reconstruction. The Court noted that, while there was some agreement among the experts, there was obvious disagreement with respect to the core issue of liability, being the location of the Bulmer and Dean ATVs at the moment of the first collision. The experts retained by Dean opined that the initial collision had occurred near the right shoulder of the roadway, while the experts retained by Bulmer maintained that it had occurred in the middle of the roadway. After considering the methodology of each, the Court found Dean’s expert evidence to be more compelling. Crucially, he also found that Dean’s own testimony as to the location of the collision was more credible than Bulmer’s testimony on the same.
The Defendant also advanced the argument that the presence of passengers on the other two ATVs was contrary to the manufacturer’s guidance and had played a role in reducing the reaction time available to Dean and Murray. The Court concluded that this point was irrelevant, because neither driver had even the slightest opportunity to avoid the Bulmer ATV, regardless of their passengers.
Defendant Bulmer was therefore held 100% liable for the accident. Both collisions were the direct result of Bulmer negligently operating his ATV over the centre line and in the opposing lane of travel. There was absolutely no time or chance for Dean or Murray to avoid the collision, so no fault could be attributed to either party.
