IANNARELLA v CORBETT[1]
Factual Background
The case involved a rear-end collision occurring on Highway 427 at night, in a snowstorm. The Defendant was driving in a snow squall which led to “whiteout” conditions. The Defendant lost visibility and slammed on the brakes but did not have time to avoid a collision with the Plaintiff, who was directly in front of him.
Following the conclusion of a 15 day trial, the jury found that the Defendant had not been driving negligently and the action was dismissed on the ground of liability.
The Plaintiff appealed on a number of grounds including that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the onus of proof in a rear-end collision.
The Onus for Liability
The Court of Appeal stated that the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury with respect to the onus of proof. Where a rear-end collision has occurred and the Plaintiff proves the occurrence happened, the onus is on the defendant to prove that he or she could not have avoided the accident through the exercise of reasonable care. This analysis applies even in an emergency situation, or in the context of an “inevitable accident.”
The Court confirmed that once the plaintiff has proven that a rear-end collision has occurred, the evidentiary burden shifts from the plaintiff to the defendant, who must then show that he or she was not negligent. This is applicable in all rear-end collision cases, including an emergency situation, as was alleged in this case.
In the context of weather related emergency situations, it will be very difficult for a defendant to succeed in proving he or she was not negligent. Emergency situations are inherently foreseeable during inclement weather and require motorists to drive accordingly.
[1] 2015 ONCA 110