Digest: R v Gartner, 2018 SKQB 333

• Date: November 30, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 333

Docket Number: QB18319 , CRM 289/17 JCS

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-11-30

Judges:

• Turcotte

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Motor Vehicle Offences � Dangerous Driving Causing Death

Digest: The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death contrary to s. 249(4) of the Criminal Code. He was operating his motorcycle with a passenger riding on the pillion. They were proceeding eastbound on a major road in a speed zone of 50 km per hour. As the accused approached a stoplight, the light changed from green to amber and he continued through the intersection. Another vehicle turning across the eastbound traffic went through the intersection on the amber light and struck the accused�s motorcycle. The accused was seriously injured and his passenger died. At the time of the collision, the accused�s view of the vehicle turning across the intersection was obscured by a truck stopped in the left-hand turning lane. The driver of the vehicle in the lane to the right of the accused began to stop when the light turned amber. His dashcam video camera recorded the motorcycle passing his vehicle and colliding with the vehicle turning in front of it. The sound of the motorcycle accelerating as the light changed could be heard. The video was used by the police officer called to testify as an expert witness in accident reconstruction. In his opinion, the motorcycle was travelling at a speed of between 57 and 73 km/h as it entered the intersection. The driver of the vehicle turning in front of the motorcycle testified that he moved slowly into intersection as the light changed. The accused did not testify. The Crown argued that the manner of the accused�s driving a motorcycle with a passenger and accelerating towards an intersection facing an amber light constituted dangerous driving. His decision to accelerate into the intersection at a speed considerably over the limit in the circumstances constituted a marked departure from what a reasonable person would have done, which would have been to stop.
HELD: The accused was acquitted. The court found that the accused was driving in a manner that was dangerous to the public, but was not satisfied that his objectively dangerous driving was a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person. Both the accused and the other driver made careless mistakes. The video recording showed that the other driver did not inch into the...