R v Globocki

R. v. Globocki

[1991] O.J. No. 214
Ontario Court of Justice - Provincial Division — Justice MacDonnell | January 4, 1991

Background

On January 13, 1989, Liljana Globocki was driving southbound on Victoria Park Avenue in Scarborough around 8 PM when her vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian who was jaywalking across the four-lane highway. The pedestrian was crossing from west to east, attempting to reach the other side when she was hit. There was no crosswalk at the location — the woman was simply crossing illegally in the middle of the road.

Multiple witnesses saw the accident unfold. Andrew Worth, driving behind Globocki, testified that he saw the pedestrian crossing about 175 yards ahead and applied his brakes, expecting Globocki to do the same. She didn't. The pedestrian was walking directly across the roadway carrying a white plastic grocery bag, not appearing to pay attention to oncoming southbound traffic. Worth only saw Globocki's brake lights come on after the collision occurred.

Issues

1. Whether the defendant departed sufficiently from the standard of care expected of a prudent driver to warrant a careless driving conviction under section 111 of the Highway Traffic Act
2. Whether the defendant's failure to see the pedestrian until the moment of impact constituted careless driving

The Standard of Care Analysis

Justice MacDonnell had to determine what standard applies when assessing careless driving charges. The court relied on the landmark case R. v. Beauchamp, which established that drivers cannot be required to operate "as if in constant fear that other users of the road may possibly act at a critical moment in disregard of the safety of themselves and other users." The test is whether the defendant's departure from reasonable care was sufficient to be "deserving of punishment."

The expert evidence showed that if Globocki had reacted instantly when the pedestrian entered the roadway, she still would have been unable to stop before the collision. The pedestrian was in Globocki's driving lane for only 1.05 seconds before impact — even with perfect reaction time, physics made this accident unavoidable once the pedestrian entered the roadway.

Critically, the court found that jaywalking is common, and drivers are entitled to make reasonable assumptions about pedestrian behavior. A driver does not automatically become careless simply because they failed to anticipate someone illegally crossing a busy highway at night.

Key Takeaway

Not every tragic accident amounts to careless driving — the Crown must prove the driver's conduct was sufficiently below the standard to deserve punishment.

This case shows that careless driving under section 111 of the HTA requires more than just being involved in a collision. The prosecution must prove that a reasonable driver in the same circumstances would have acted differently, and that the defendant's departure from that standard was significant enough to warrant criminal sanction.