In the recent decision of Smith v. Johnson, 2023 ONCA 10 (application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada pending), the Calgary Court of Appeal reviewed a lower court’s assessment of a mother’s potential liability for parental negligence in relation to injuries sustained by her daughter as a result of a car accident.
On July 15, 2015, the mother allowed her 7-year-old daughter to ride in the front passenger seat of her compact car. The child was not properly secured in a booster seat, as required by Calgary law for children under the age of 8 who weigh less than 36 kg (80 lbs) or are less than 145 cm (4 feet 9 inches) tall. Instead, the mother had the child wear only a regular seatbelt, which was not designed to safely restrain a child of her size.
Tragically, as the mother was driving at approximately 60 km per hour, another vehicle ran a red light and collided with the passenger side of the mother’s car. The child suffered severe injuries as a result of the accident, in part due to the lack of proper safety restraints.
The lower court found the driver of the other vehicle to be liable for their negligence in causing the accident. However, the issue before the Court of Appeal was the lower court’s refusal to grant summary judgment against the mother for liability arising from parental negligence.
In reviewing the decision of the lower court, the Court of Appeal addressed the components of parental negligence as follows:
- Duty of Care: A prima facie duty of care was owed by the mother to the daughter, given the relationship of proximity between a parent and child, where carelessness on the parent’s part could reasonably be expected to cause the child harm. Moreover, a parent is in a position of control over a vulnerable child and owes that child affirmative obligations. Indeed, control and vulnerability are what creates this classic duty of care.
- Standard of Care: Reference was made to the safety provisions set out in the Calgary Highway Traffic Act, confirming that breach of a statutory provision is prima facie evidence of negligence. Such a breach gives rise to civil liability where the statutory provisions are intended to inform or create a standard of care. The mother’s breaches of the standard of care were seen to include:
- Failing to properly secure her child in a booster seat, as required by law;
- Placing her child at an unreasonable risk of harm in the event of an accident by not using appropriate safety restraints;
- Disregarding the foreseeable risk of severe injury to her child if involved in a collision while improperly restrained, even if the mother was driving within the posted speed limit; and
- Failing to prioritize her child’s safety when there was no necessity or emergency that would justify not using a booster seat, and the cost of eliminating the risk (by using a booster seat) was negligible.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in this case serves as a stark reminder of the legal obligations parents have to ensure their children’s safety when travelling in motor vehicles. It also highlights the potential for parental liability when those obligations are not met, even if the parent is not directly responsible for causing the accident.
If you or a loved one has been involved in a motor vehicle accident in Calgary , it is essential to consult with an experienced personal injury lawyer who can help you navigate the complex legal issues that may arise. At Car Accident Lawyer Calgary, our team of knowledgeable attorneys is dedicated to helping accident victims and their families secure the compensation they deserve.
We offer free initial consultations and work on a contingency fee basis, which means you don’t pay unless we win your case. Contact Car Accident Lawyer Calgary today to learn more about how we can help you protect your rights and pursue the justice you deserve.
- Causation: The mother’s argument on causation was that the negligence of the other driver was the sole cause of the accident, and that “but for” the negligence of the other driver, there would not have been an accident and the daughter would not have been injured. The Court of Appeal confirmed that to find causation in respect of the mother, it would need to find only that the negligence of the mother made a difference in respect of the loss. In examining the connection between the mother’s conduct and the daughter’s injuries, the Court of Appeal considered:
- Was the mother aware that riding in a car without proper safety restraints is inherently riskier than being properly secured in a booster seat? The only reasonable answer was yes.
- Was the mother aware that the type of accident which occurred here was not a freak accident but one which is all too common, given the prevalence of drivers running red lights? Applying the reasonable person standard, there could be no question she was well aware of this.
- Was the mother aware that placing her daughter in a regular seatbelt, rather than a booster seat, while driving at speeds up to 60 kilometres per hour would place her daughter at significant risk of injury in light of what she already knew with respect to items 1 and 2 above? Again, the only sensible answer was yes. The mother’s negligence made a difference.
The Court of Appeal concluded that there was no question that the mother exposed the daughter to an unreasonable risk of injury and that the type of injuries she sustained was precisely of the nature the negligence created. It was sufficient that the mother’s negligence was a cause of the harm; it need not have been the sole cause of the injury.
- Remoteness or proximate cause: The Court of Appeal considered whether the mother was liable for damages relating to the extent of the daughter’s injuries, asking whether the mother’s negligent conduct was sufficiently related to the particular harm sustained by the daughter to justify liability or whether it was too far-fetched. The Court of Appeal concluded that there was nothing far-fetched about the types of injuries the daughter sustained in this case. They were precisely of the kind typically seen with victims of car accidents who are not properly restrained. The mother’s negligence in placing her daughter in the position she was in made the mother liable for her daughter’s injuries.
In considering the issue of parental liability, the Court of Appeal concluded that the daughter was entitled to summary judgment against her mother for that liability. Damages and their apportionment were to be determined at a later date.
This case serves as a poignant reminder of the legal responsibilities parents have to ensure their children’s safety when traveling in motor vehicles. It also highlights the potential for parental liability when those responsibilities are not met, even if the parent is not directly responsible for causing the accident.
If you or a loved one has been involved in a motor vehicle accident in Calgary , it is crucial to consult with an experienced personal injury lawyer who can help you navigate the complex legal issues that may arise. At Car Accident Lawyer Calgary, our team of knowledgeable attorneys is dedicated to helping accident victims and their families secure the compensation they deserve.
We offer free initial consultations and work on a contingency fee basis, which means you don’t pay unless we win your case. Contact Car Accident Lawyer Calgary today to learn more about how we can help you protect your rights and pursue the justice you deserve.