Bren Carrier- Supreme Court of Canada decision

[rob love]

Not sure you can say that about the ambulance driver without being there for the collision. As the court noted, a driver is entitled to his half of the roadway. So safe distance does not come into play.

If he was following the carrier, then yes, he has a portion of fault. But when someone skids into your lane of travel, there is not really a speed that you could pre-adjust to unless you were going to stop for all oncoming traffic. Even then people could skid into you. The court had it right: carrier driver was driving too fast for road conditions. The proof? He lost control.

Unbelievable that something like this could make it into the supreme court. As noted previously, the crown would seem to have some self serving interests in this. Even back then, the lawyers bills must surely have come out to more than the less than $500 that the judgement was for. In this day and age, a supreme court hearing will cost you way more than your house is worth.

[Robert Bergeron]

Good comments on Carrier driving and i am taking good note as a i am a new Carrier driver .

Claims against the Crown are my core business today and if i had been handling this one i would of recommended a prompt if not swift payment war on or not.

Had anybody ever heard of a Court case involving a Carrier accident with a civilian car anywere in the world ?