The driver struck and killed a person attempting to wave down assistance to get fuel
The Alberta Court of King’s Bench has allowed the claim for damages of a truck driver who struck and killed a person attempting to wave down assistance to get fuel.
In Plante v Darling, 2023 ABKB 335, Verna Baptiste was attempting to wave down assistance when she was struck and killed by a truck driven by Brodie Plante. At the time of the incident, Plante assisted a friend in moving personal possessions. He was travelling southbound on Highway 22 towards Morley when he saw Baptiste's parked vehicle with its hazard lights. Plante thought it may have broken down or run out of fuel. After passing the car, he noticed what appeared to be a person with a hand raised on his right side from the southbound shoulder. He swerved hard to his left but could not avoid a collision at this point of his right passenger-side mirror.
The collision killed Baptiste. Her vehicle was about forty metres north of where the authorities found her body. Toxicology reports indicated that her blood alcohol level exceeded three times the legal limit.
Following the accident, a psychologist diagnosed Plante with post-traumatic stress disorder. He had difficulties sleeping, anxiety issues, and other disturbances. Plante commenced a lawsuit seeking damages for "cognitive disturbances, depression and anxiety." The administrator designated under the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act became involved and filed a statement of defence.
The Alberta Court of King's Bench ultimately ruled that the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act covered Plante's injuries, and the Limitations Act did not bar his claim. The court explained that the act compensates persons "who suffer damage in a motor vehicle accident caused by or contributed to by uninsured or unknown drivers and owners of vehicles."
The court noted that Baptiste was not in her vehicle at the time of the accident. The issue was whether Plante's action was one for damages for bodily injury to a person arising from using or operating a motor vehicle. The court further said that the coverage determination is focused on the tortfeasor's operation of a motor vehicle. The proper approach is first to ask whether the defendant's vehicle was being put to an ordinary and well-known activity at the time of the occurrence and, second, whether there was an unbroken chain of causation linking the plaintiff's injuries to the use and operation of the tortfeasor's vehicle.
The court found that Baptiste used the vehicle for transportation, not some ancillary purpose unrelated to its ordinary use. The court cited several examples of purpose unrelated to the ordinary use of the vehicle, such as using the car as a diving platform, retiring a disabled truck to a barn to store dynamite, or negligently using the truck as a permanent prop to shore up a drive shed.
The court was also satisfied that Plante's injuries arose from Baptiste's "use or operation of a motor vehicle." The court found an unbroken chain of causation between Baptiste's regular use of her vehicle and subsequent activities, which led to the accident. The court stressed that Baptiste did not abandon the use of her car, evidenced by activating her hazard lights, leaving a passenger in the vehicle and being found about forty metres from her vehicle. She was doing what was necessary to continue using her car: procuring assistance to get fuel.
Accordingly, the court concluded that Plante's injuries arose from using or operating a motor vehicle as defined under the Motor Vehicle Claims Act. The court also determined that the Limitations Act did not bar his claim.
