Kuz v. Ledrew et al., 2008 ABPC 340

• Judge: O'Ferrall, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 17, 2008
• Citations: 2008 ABPC 340;(2008), 461 A.R. 231 (PC)

Kuz v. Ledrew (2008), 461 A.R. 231 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. DE.099

Michael Kuz and Rhonda Kuz (plaintiffs) v. Todd Nelson Ledrew, Irma Rose Jillain and the City of Calgary (defendant)

(P0590105159; 2008 ABPC 340)

Indexed As: Kuz v. Ledrew et al.

Alberta Provincial Court

O'Ferrall, P.C.J.

September 24, 2008.

Summary:

The plaintiffs brought an action against a municipality, arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred at an intersection where the traffic lights were not functioning properly. The plaintiff sought to recover the amount he was required to pay the owner of the other vehicle and the cost of repairing the damage to his vehicle. The only issue was the municipality's liability.

The Alberta Provincial Court allowed the action and ordered judgment in favour of the plaintiffs in the amount conceded to represent their damages ($8,119.53).

Municipal Law - Topic 1723

Liability of municipalities - Highways and streets - Traffic control - General - Following a power outage, traffic lights at an intersection were flashing red in both directions - Seconds before a collision occurred, the signal lights were corrected - The plaintiff, who had been facing a flashing red light, did not notice the signal light changing to a solid red light and proceeded into the intersection after having stopped to wait his turn - The motorist coming down the street perpendicular to the intersection, apparently oblivious to the fact that the signal lights had previously been flashing red, proceeded through the intersection on the solid green - A collision ensued - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the municipality breached its duty of care owed to the motorists and was liable in negligence - At the time, the municipality had a maintenance crew of two on the scene to reset the malfunctioning traffic lights - The crew had no flagman and carried no signs - Neither crew was trained in traffic control and the police were not called to help with traffic control - The municipality's operational practice was that when a controller was re-activated, the traffic signal lights continued to flash red in all directions for a further 10 or 15 seconds - Then the traffic signals would show a solid red in all directions for five seconds, after which the traffic signal lights would show green in a prescribed higher volume direction which is referred to as the "main street" and continue to show red in the other direction - This sequencing had been in place for 15 years - The evidence was that the public had not been made aware of the sequencing and timing of the traffic control lights when they were being reset - What happened was completely foreseeable - Addressing the danger might not have been easy, but the municipality was aware of the potential disaster and had done nothing other than a five second period of all red lights to address the danger - The measure was inadequate - The municipality might have been able to avoid liability by adducing evidence of due diligence - No such evidence had been presented.

Municipal Law - Topic 1725

Liability of municipalities - Highways and streets - Maintenance and erection of traffic control devices - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1723 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 1801.1

Liability of municipalities - Negligence - Duty of care - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1723 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 1801.1

Liability of municipalities - Negligence - Duty of care - The Alberta Provincial Court reviewed the case law and held that a municipality "as the road authority, owes a duty of care to those using its roads. Furthermore, I interpret those cases to hold that the duty of care extends to taking reasonable steps to prevent injury to users of its roads. In other words, the duty of care extends beyond the City's statutory duties set out in Section 532(1) and (7) of the Municipal Government Act, namely to keep roads in a reasonable state of repair and to repair malfunctioning traffic control devices in a reasonable period of time. The City, of course, had a duty to fix the traffic lights in a reasonable period of time and it discharged that duty in this case; but that does not end the matter because there is also the duty to take reasonable steps to prevent injury to motorists" - See paragraph 18.

Cases Noticed:

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; 103 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 18].

Brown v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 420; 164 N.R. 161; 42 B.C.A.C. 1; 67 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 18].

Sutherland Shire Council v. Heyman (1985), 60 A.L.R. 1 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Kozina v. Lajoie and Calgary (City) (1990), 103 A.R. 55 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 34].

Counsel:

Brock Carscallen, for the plaintiff;

Amy Nixon, for the defendant.

This action was heard on January 17, 2008, by O'Ferrall, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on September 24, 2008.