55741
55592
Achieving-Justice

Pokezombies, Go!

A zombie, following a Pokemon, steps out onto the street ahead of your vehicle.

You see it coming “a mile away.” You’ve heard of the Pokemon craze that has zombified the population; folks wandering around with their eyes glued to the screens of their cellphones.

It’s broad daylight and this particular zombie has all the characteristics. He’s watching his cellphone, not where he’s going. He’s mid-block, not at a crosswalk. He’s blindly walking into the street.

You feel confident that you have the right of way, and you would be correct. Section 180 of the Motor Vehicle Act provides: “When a pedestrian is crossing a highway at a point not in a crosswalk, the pedestrian must yield the right of way to a vehicle.”

So, of course, you confidently maintain your speed and continue forward.

Oopsie! Not only would that be about as morally bankrupt as could be imagined, that would offend section 181(a) which requires you to “…exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian who is on the highway.”

Morality and rules of the road aside, I expect that there is a Criminal Code provision that would put you behind bars for a long time if you made the conscious choice to mow down a pedestrian because you had the right of way.

By the way, the word “highway” in the Motor Vehicle Act is very broadly defined to include all manner of roads, streets and lane-ways (see section 1 of the Act).

Another “by the way” is that the Motor Vehicle Act is readily available online, along with the Criminal Code and all other provincial and federal pieces of legislation. 

Please e-mail me if you have any difficulty accessing those resources and I will be happy to help you out.

What if you are what I might refer to as a regretfully typical motorist, not paying your full, direct attention to the road ahead of you? 

Your direct attention might be on a cellphone conversation, what happened at the office that day, some drama with a friend, or driving has become so second nature that you drive in autopilot.

You could have recognized the hazard of a jaywalking Pokemon-zombie pedestrian about to walk in front of you “a mile away” but you don’t. Instead, your brain kicks into gear when it’s too late, and the pedestrian flies over the hood of your vehicle.

If the injured zombie made a claim against you, would you be found liable to compensate him for his injuries and losses? Should you be?

Last week, I wrote about the opposite scenario. Both the motorist and pedestrian were zombies, but the pedestrian clearly had the right of way. 

In that case, the pedestrian shared the blame even though she was established within a crosswalk. She was found 25 per cent responsible for the collision because she wasn’t looking out for her own safety.

What about this scenario, where the motorist is the one who has the clear right of way?

Wouldn’t you know, a court would likely divide “fault” in this scenario as well. 

A useful, and authoritative, description of the law can be found in the case of Ashe v. Werstiuk, 2004 BCCA 75, a decision of a three judge panel of our Court of Appeal.

In that case, a jaywalking woman walked in front of a backhoe operator who should have, but did not, notice her. After a very thorough review of the law, the Court of Appeal assessed the backhoe operator and the pedestrian each 50 per cent at fault.

What lessons can be taken from the law I have shared with you in my last three columns about pedestrian and motorist responsibilities? 

Each of us, motorists and pedestrians, must pay attention to what is going on around us. 

Also, please stop for pedestrians.

COMMENTS WELCOME

Comments are pre-moderated to ensure they meet our guidelines. Approval times will vary. Keep it civil, and stay on topic. If you see an inappropriate comment, please use the ‘flag’ feature. Comments are the opinions of the comment writer, not of Castanet. Comments remain open for one day after a story is published and are closed on weekends. Visit Castanet’s Forums to start or join a discussion about this story.



More Achieving Justice articles

About the Author

Paul Hergott began practicing law in 1995, in a general litigation practice. Of the various areas of litigation, he became most drawn to, and passionate about, pursuing fair compensation for injured victims. This gradually became his exclusive area of practice.

In 2007, Paul opened Hergott Law, a boutique personal injury law firm in the Central Interior, serving personal injury clients from all over British Columbia. Paul’s practice is restricted to acting only for the injured victim, never for ICBC or for other insurance companies.

Paul became a weekly newspaper columnist in January of 2007, when his first column entitled “It’s not about screwing the Insurance Company” was published. 

Please feel free to email or call Paul (1.855.437.4688) with legal issues you might like him to write about in his column, or to offer your feedback about something he has written.

Email:   [email protected]
Firm website:  www.hlaw.ca
Achieving Justice Legal Blog:  http://www.hlaw.ca/category/all-columns/
One Crash is Too Many Road Safety Campaign: www.onecrashistoomany.com
Google Plus:  https://plus.google.com/+HlawCanada/posts
Facebook:  www.facebook.com/personalinjurylawfirm
Twitter:   twitter.com/Hergott_Law



55158
The views expressed are strictly those of the author and not necessarily those of Castanet. Castanet does not warrant the contents.

Previous Stories



53669


49335