693/97 IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN AT REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION BETWEEN: ELMER SCHMIDT Plaintiff and VERNON HENRY AND Defendant MARGARET HENRY 1. When Elmer Schmidt, who was travelling west on Highway 306 near Grey, Saskatchewan, saw car driven by Margaret Henry approach from his right, stop at the stop sign, and then proceed forward toward the highway, he applied his brakes with such force that his truck entered skid, left the highway, and struck the side of the car. The damages to both the truck and the car exceeded the $500.00 insurance deductible. Consequently, Schmidt brings this action against the car\'s owner, Vernon Henry, and Margaret Henry for his $500.00 deductible, and the Henrys counterclaim for the same. 2. The situation at this intersection is somewhat unusual, in that the stop sign is 39 feet back from the edge of the pavement, which itself approximately two feet from the driving portion of the highway. Henry complied with the requirement to stop. However, The Highway Traffic Act places an additional duty upon such drivers. Section 40 of the Act reads, in part: (4) The driver of vehicle shall bring the vehicle to stop: (a) at every place where stop sign is erected; (6) No person who is required to stop pursuant to subsection (4) or (5) shall proceed until it is safe to do so. 3. Those subsections have been interpreted to mean, sensibly, that the driver must not only stop, but yield to oncoming traffic. However, it does not prohibit driver from proceeding from the stop sign toward the actual intersection. In case where that intersection is 39 feet away, it is quite possible to proceed toward it even while yielding to oncoming traffic. 4. There is further evidence. Although Schmidt disagrees, Henry states that she had come to second stop before the collision occurred. That evidence is supported by two independent facts. The first is that after the collision, her car remained off the paved portion of the highway. The second is the evidence, as given by the investigating officer, that the car's front wheel skid marks were also entirely off the pavement, and several feet back from the driving portion. 5. In short, it must be concluded that either Henry had stopped, or was able to stop, before entering Schmidt's right of way. 6. Even if Schmidt concluded that Henry was going to proceed into his path, he had more appropriate alternatives than locking his brakes and turning to the right. There was no other traffic. He could have applied his brakes, maintained control of his vehicle, and moved into the oncoming lane. 7. Most of the fault in this accident is attributable to Schmidt\'s inappropriate reaction to the situation. However, although Henry complied with the rules of the road, a prudent driver in this situation would come to a stop further back from the highway to ensure that oncoming drivers would know that they had been seen and yielded to. I attribute 10% of the fault in this accident to Henry and 90% to Schmidt. 8. In conclusion, Schmidt will have Judgment against the Henrys in the amount of $50.00. On the other hand, the counterclaim succeeds against Schmidt in the amount of $450.00. They will also have Judgment for the cost of two subpoenas. August 10, 2006 R. Moxley Judge of the Provincial Court
The parties were involved in an accident. The defendant stopped at a stop sign 39 feet from the intersection and rolled forward while yielding. The plaintiff locked his brakes and skidded into the defendant, attempting to avoid an accident. Damage to both vehicles exceeded the insurance deductibles and both parties claim damages against each other for the amount of the deductibles. HELD: The plaintiff will have judgment against the defendant in the amount of $50. The defendant will have judgment against the plaintiff in the amount of $450 plus costs. Fault for this accident was attributed 10% to the defendant and 90% to the plaintiff. The defendant had indeed yielded properly but could have been more prudent in insuring that other motorist were aware that she yielded. The plaintiff should have taken more appropriate measures to avoid the accident