Makara

Aug 31, 2023

Judge says driver could not have been expected to avoid hitting the man, considering he was wearing dark clothing, not on the shoulder and had been drinking Author of the article: It was dark and rainy on the night in 2018 when Stephen Makara was walking in the same direction as traffic, on an unlit section of 240th Street in Langley. Court heard he was walking almost a metre from the right white line separating the road from the shoulder. PNG Article content A Langley driver who struck a pedestrian on a dark road on a rainy night, knocking him into the ditch and leaving him with a serious head injury, has been found not responsible for the “tragic” crash. We apologize, but this video has failed to load. Try refreshing your browser, or We apologize, but this video has failed to load. Try refreshing your browser, or Play Video “I conclude that the defendant could not have avoided colliding with the plaintiff in the circumstances by an exercise of reasonable care and prudence,” wrote B.C. Supreme Court Justice John Gibb-Carsley in reasons for judgment after a 10-day trial to determine liability for the October 2018 crash that left Stephen Andrew Makara, then 35, injured and unable to work. Advertisement 2 THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Vancouver Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Vancouver Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. or Article content Article content His lawyers had argued that the driver, Gregory Jay Peter, failed to drive for the road conditions or for the fact that he knew pedestrians sometimes walk along that road, and he was particularly negligent because he failed to use his high-beam headlights that night, and if he had, he could have avoided hitting Makara. But the judge ruled Makara hadn’t proved Peter had been negligent. “I recognize that this case is tragic” and acknowledged Makara had been “profoundly impacted,” wrote Gibb-Carsley, but he found Makara’s conduct and decisions were responsible for the accident. A finding of no liability against Peter means Makara is unable to pursue a lawsuit against him for damages. Around 8 p.m. on Oct. 30, 2018, it was dark and rainy and Makara was walking in the same direction as traffic, on an unlit section of 240th Street in Langley. Court heard he was walking almost a metre from the right white line separating the road from the shoulder. Peter was driving a 2013 Dodge Ram 1500 half-ton truck and his windshield wipers were operating at the highest speed because of heavy rain, court was told. Makara was wearing dark grey or black clothing and a hoodie and had been drinking. He has no memory of the crash or the events before it, according to the judgment. Sunrise Article content Peter testified he was driving around 50 kph, 10 kph below the speed limit, and did not have his high beams on. He said he swerved when he saw Makara, but was unable to avoid hitting him. A collision expert testified that high beams should not be used in heavy rain with wipers at high speed because falling rain droplets disperse and reflect light and tend to wash out objects in the scene and diminish contrast. He concluded the accident was “likely unavoidable” and that the “use of high-beam headlights … would not have made a significant difference,” wrote Gibb-Carsley. The judge said a toxicology expert testified Makara was “heavily intoxicated,” having consumed the equivalent of eight “doubles” between noon and 4 p.m., which aligned with a witness who smelled alcohol from Makara at the scene. That would “more likely than not contribute to the decisions (Makara) made leading up to the accident and his ability to perceive and judge his location on the roadway and the distances from the truck,” the judge wrote. But “sober or intoxicated, the plaintiff’s location on the roadway, walking in the same direction as traffic, in the rain and dark, and wearing dark clothing are the primary factors in my analysis of whether the defendant could have avoided striking the plaintiff with his truck that night.” Advertisement 4 Article content “I feel I must comment once more that this is a truly tragic case,” wrote Gibb-Carsley. “The accident profoundly and negatively changed Mr. Makara’s life. I have great sympathy for him, and recognize the difficult obstacles he will have to face and overcome.” And he said he had sympathy for his family, “honest, hard-working and caring individuals,” who have made sacrifices to care for Makara. “However, I simply cannot find, on careful review of the evidence as a whole, that the plaintiff has demonstrated that the defendant failed to live up to the standard of care expected of a driver in like circumstances.”