鈥� By Paul Hergott
Here鈥檚 a 鈥渨ho are you鈥� 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鈥檙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鈥檙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鈥檚 say the stranded motorist could not have been more 鈥渁t fault鈥� 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鈥檛 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 鈥渄istance to empty鈥� features of the Ford F350 she was driving and ran out of gas. As described by the judge, she then 鈥溾�hifted 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.鈥�
Really? Pushing an F350? Anyway, I鈥檒l go on.
Mr. Tucker came on the scene. He jumped to Ms. Smith鈥檚 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 鈥淟aw Relating to Rescuers鈥� starting at paragraph 19 of the decision, and then 鈥淭he Requirement of Imminent Peril in Rescue Cases鈥� starting at paragraph 26.
If a driver鈥檚 negligence 鈥溾�as created some hazard, danger or situation of imminent peril to a victim or potential victims鈥︹��, 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鈥檚 stalled truck did not create a situation of imminent peril.
She noted that 鈥渢here was no collision between any vehicles; no one suffered injury as a result of the truck stalling鈥ther motorists were sensibly not attempting to drive past her vehicle鈥t]he defendant was not trapped in her vehicle, nor was she rendered helpless by the incident.鈥�
In the result Mr. Tucker was left to bear the full losses arising from his injury. He was not able to access Ms. Smith鈥檚 liability insurance policy for compensation.
Should this state of the law cause hesitation before you do the 鈥淐anadian thing鈥� and help folks out?
A little hesitation is a good thing! It鈥檚 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.
