R v McDorman

R. v. McDorman

[1984] B.C.J. No. 1053
British Columbia County Court — Robinson Co. Ct. J. | Heard January 30, 1984, Judgment March 2, 1984

Background

Darren McDorman was a professional truck driver with three and a half years of experience, hauling a load of cyanide from Edmonton to Vancouver. On February 18, 1982, around 9:15 p.m., after driving for approximately 30 hours without sleep, McDorman approached downtown Kamloops. He missed two truck route signs that would have directed him to the city bypass via Peterson Creek. As he descended the steep Columbia Street hill into downtown Kamloops, traveling within the posted speed limit, his truck's brakes failed completely at the intersection of First Avenue and Columbia Street.

Faced with stationary vehicles ahead — including a Ford pickup driven by Eric Mayhofer and a vehicle with passenger Sybil Spragge — McDorman had to make a split-second decision. Rather than trying to stop by hitting the retaining wall (which he feared would cause loss of control and send him into houses), he chose to drive between the stationary vehicles, causing a serious accident. Expert evidence later revealed that the brake linings were worn beyond acceptable limits, the brake drums needed replacement, and the slack-adjusters hadn't been properly maintained, with evidence of intentional tampering.

Issues

1. Whether McDorman drove without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway
2. Whether McDorman operated a vehicle with defective brakes contrary to Motor Vehicle Regulations

The "Reasonable Consideration" Standard

The court had to determine what constitutes "driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway" under section 149(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act. The trial judge identified four key factors: (1) driving 30 hours without sleep while hauling hazardous materials, (2) continuing to drive after detecting an air leak rather than getting mechanical attention, (3) failing to inspect the truck and check slack-adjusters, and (4) missing the bypass route signs.

However, the court held that the accident itself was not the determining factor. The judge emphasized that there's an onus on every driver to adhere to reasonable safety standards, but these standards "may vary with the circumstances." The court drew inferences about McDorman's fatigue affecting his motor responses and failure to observe the route signs, but ultimately concluded that his conduct — while arguably negligent — still met the threshold of "reasonable consideration" given all the circumstances.

The Brake Defect and Due Diligence

On the second count involving defective brakes under section 5.08 of the Motor Vehicle Regulations, the court applied a due diligence standard. Even though expert evidence showed the brakes were mechanically defective and improperly maintained, the court found that McDorman had exercised sufficient care. The judge noted that McDorman had previously tested his braking system with satisfactory results and had made a temporary repair to an air leak. The court concluded that "the accused did not do all that he should have in ensuring their fitness," but this fell short of strict liability, allowing for the due diligence defence.

Key Takeaway

Courts will consider the totality of circumstances and driver conduct leading up to an accident, not just the accident itself, when determining driving offences.

This case shows that even serious mechanical failures and poor driving decisions may not automatically result in conviction if the court finds the driver's overall conduct met minimum safety standards for the circumstances. The decision illustrates how challenging it can be to prove driving offences when accidents result from mechanical failures rather than clearly reckless behavior.