In this motor vehicle accident case, Gandha v. Beauchesne, 2025 BCCA 122, the claimant appealed a jury verdict that found the defendant not liable despite assessing $752,000 in losses. The collision occurred when the defendant rear-ended the claimant’s vehicle after she merged onto the highway from her driveway at a speed below the limit. The primary issue on appeal concerned the trial judge’s failure to properly instruct the jury on the legal obligations governing drivers.
Failure to Instruct Jury on Obligations Between Drivers
The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient legal instruction on drivers’ duties, particularly the obligations to yield when merging, to avoid impeding traffic, and to maintain safe following distances. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge’s generalized standard-of-care instruction was insufficient in light of both parties’ closing submissions, which referenced the legality of the plaintiff’s driving conduct. This failure constituted a legal error, as the jury was not adequately guided to apply the law to the facts.
Potential Misunderstanding of Illegality and Liability
The Court held that the jury may have been misled into believing that any illegality on the plaintiff’s part (e.g., driving slowly or merging unsafely) automatically absolved the defendant of liability. However, the law requires an assessment of whether the defendant exercised reasonable care, even when another driver may have been partially at fault or breached a statute.
Miscarriage of Justice Warranting a New Trial
Given the trial judge’s omission and the influence of potentially misleading submissions by counsel, the Court concluded that a properly instructed jury might have reached a different verdict. The failure amounted to a miscarriage of justice warranting appellate intervention.
The appeal was allowed. A new trial was ordered on the issue of liability.
