乌鸦传媒� By Paul Hergott
Here乌鸦传媒檚 a 乌鸦传媒渨ho are you乌鸦传媒� riddle.
A car stalls in traffic; you lend a hand to push it off the road.
A vehicle is stuck in snow; you help digging or pushing it out.
Someone needs a boost; you pull in and dig out your cables.
Who are you? You乌鸦传媒檙e a Canadian! Most likely from Saskatchewan?
Is it something in the water? It feels good to lend a hand.
The stranded motorist is very appreciative and you go away with a song in your heart.
But what if something goes wrong.
You乌鸦传媒檙e much too out of shape to be pushing a vehicle and herniate a disk in your back.
You slip and fall on the icy road and fracture your arm.
The battery explodes, the acid causing serious damage to your eyes (for instruction about how to safely boost a battery, please read).
Lending a hand can leave you with serious injury. Injuries can lead to income loss and other financial consequences.
Who is responsible for those consequences?
Let乌鸦传媒檚 say the stranded motorist could not have been more 乌鸦传媒渁t fault乌鸦传媒� for becoming stranded.
He or she ran out of gas, got stuck by grossly overdriving icy conditions or drained the battery by blaring a huge aftermarket car stereo.
It doesn乌鸦传媒檛 matter. It is the law of British Columbia that you alone suffer those consequences.
To illustrate a distinction in the law, I used examples where the stranded motorist situation was not a true emergency. The law is different if your motivation was to save someone from imminent danger.
The distinction was discussed by Madam Justice Russell in the case of 2007 BCSC 489.
Ms. Smith ignored the low fuel warning and 乌鸦传媒渄istance to empty乌鸦传媒� features of the Ford F350 she was driving and ran out of gas. As described by the judge, she then 乌鸦传媒溛谘淮溅shifted the truck into neutral, got out of the truck, began pushing against the door frame with one hand and steering the truck with the other, with the door open.乌鸦传媒�
Really? Pushing an F350? Anyway, I乌鸦传媒檒l go on.
Mr. Tucker came on the scene. He jumped to Ms. Smith乌鸦传媒檚 rescue and helped push the truck to the curb. The physical exertion caused Mr. Tucker to suffer a severed tendon in his leg. It was surgically repaired, but he was left with a permanent partial disability.
Madam Justice Russel reviews the 乌鸦传媒淟aw Relating to Rescuers乌鸦传媒� starting at paragraph 19 of the decision, and then 乌鸦传媒淭he Requirement of Imminent Peril in Rescue Cases乌鸦传媒� starting at paragraph 26.
If a driver乌鸦传媒檚 negligence 乌鸦传媒溛谘淮溅has created some hazard, danger or situation of imminent peril to a victim or potential victims乌鸦传媒ξ谘淮綕, he or she is responsible for injuries suffered by a good Samaritan who comes to the rescue.
In the case of Smith v. Tucker, though, Madam Justice Russel found that Ms. Smith乌鸦传媒檚 stalled truck did not create a situation of imminent peril.
She noted that 乌鸦传媒渢here was no collision between any vehicles; no one suffered injury as a result of the truck stalling乌鸦传媒ther motorists were sensibly not attempting to drive past her vehicle乌鸦传媒t]he defendant was not trapped in her vehicle, nor was she rendered helpless by the incident.乌鸦传媒�
In the result Mr. Tucker was left to bear the full losses arising from his injury. He was not able to access Ms. Smith乌鸦传媒檚 liability insurance policy for compensation.
Should this state of the law cause hesitation before you do the 乌鸦传媒淐anadian thing乌鸦传媒� and help folks out?
A little hesitation is a good thing! It乌鸦传媒檚 always best to calmly assess potential risks before diving in to do anything, including helping someone stranded on the road. Knowing that you will bear the full extent of your losses if an injury occurs will naturally lead to taking full responsibility and ownership for your own safety and greatly reduce the chance of injury.
