Alberta, Canada
The following excerpt is from Dubitski v. Barbieri, 2004 ABQB 187 (CanLII):
In Wittmeier v. Scholes, supra the plaintiff hit the defendant, who was attempting a left turn. The road was slippery and the defendant attempted to clear the intersection when he saw the plaintiff’s vehicle but was unable to get any traction. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff was inattentive and was travelling too fast given the road conditions. Perras J. apportioned liability 64 per cent to the defendant and 36 per cent to the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent because his attention was distracted, and his speed was excessive given the road conditions.
Heller v. Martens, supra was a case where the plaintiff was injured when the defendant ran a stop sign and hit him. The only issue at trial was whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent for failing to wear a seatbelt. The majority on appeal, after considering the proper approach to apportionment, held that the plaintiff bore no burden to prove that he would have suffered injury had he worn a seatbelt. The majority dismissed the defendant’s appeal, finding that the trial judge properly concluded that both the failure to stop at the stop sign (75% liability) and the failure to wear a seatbelt (25% liability) materially contributed to the injuries. Analysis Speed
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.