In this blog, we explore whether insurance companies can use contributory negligence principles to reduce the personal injury compensation entitlements of taxi drivers who fail to wear their seat belts at the time of a motor vehicle accident in Alberta. After reviewing applicable and persuasive law relating to this issue, I conclude that courts prefer a contextual approach to the application of taxi driver seat belt exemptions. So, it is advisable that taxi drivers default to wearing their seat belts, except in very rare situations where personal safety considerations outweigh personal injury concerns that may arise out of not wearing the seat belt in the event of a motor vehicle accident.
Contributory Negligence and Seat Belt Laws in Alberta
As a starting point, apportionment of liability as relates to contributory negligence is governed by s 1(1) of the Contributory Negligence Act, RSA 2000, c. C-27. The proper test to be used when considering apportionment of liability for contributory negligence is that of comparative blameworthiness (Heller v Martens 2002 ABCA 122). This means that an assessment must be made of the relative departure of all parties from the standard of reasonable care. The assessment of this departure is necessarily contextual taking several factors into account.
Alberta’s Seat Belt Laws for Taxi Drivers: Exemptions and Implications
Contributory negligence principles usually come up in motor vehicle accident claims when an injured party fails to wear a seat belt at the time of motor vehicle accident in Alberta. it is not in dispute that Section 82 of the Vehicle Equipment Regulation, Alta Reg 122/2009 mandates the use of seat belts by motorists in Alberta. However, as it relates to taxi drivers in Alberta, section 85 of the Vehicle Equipment Regulation, Alta Reg 122/2009 added that taxi drivers are exempt from wearing their seat belts while the taxi is carrying a passenger for compensation or hire. The rationale for this statutory provision is to ensure the safety of the operator of the taxi. The seatbelt could be used a weapon to hurt the operator of the taxi.
How Courts View Taxi Driver Seat Belt Exemptions in Alberta
While this rationale for exempting taxi drivers from wearing a seat belt when they are carrying passengers in their vehicles, makes perfect sense, this does not mean that contributory negligence principles could still not apply to them in the assessment of damages in a personal injury claim after a motor vehicle accident in Alberta. To confirm that a personal injury claim settlement or judgement could still be reduced, a review of two persuasive cases out is required.
Goronzy v. McDonald: A 10% Reduction in Compensation
The first case is Goronzy v. McDonald (2020) B.C.J. No. 937. (Goronzy). The Goronzy case involves a multi car collision involving a Taxi driver, Rai. Rai drove his vehicle southbound across the Patullo bridge in Westminster. The Patullo bridge had two lanes each way, separated by yellow plastic nylons. Rai was travelling in the left lane. The other vehicle that collided with them was driving in the northbound direction, when the driver suffered a medical emergency, crossed the yellow plastic pylons that separated the north and south bound lanes and struck the taxi, which travelled in the left lane. The taxi spun counterclockwise, was then struck from the rear by a pick-up truck who was in the right-hand lane of the southbound lanes. The driver who suffered the medical emergency accepted liability for the accident but then claimed that the taxi driver was also contributorily negligent for failing to wear his seat belt. The taxi driver raised the statutory exemptions that apply to taxi drivers’ seat belt usage. It is worthy of note that one of the statutory exemptions have since been repealed by the provincial government. The repealed exemption is the one that stipulates that taxi drivers would not be fined if they do not wear their seat belt when driving their taxis under 70 kph. The court did not provide an analysis of the statutory exemption in Goronzy, simply concluding that the driver “took the risk by not wearing a seatbelt” at (para 188). The court went on to apply a 10% reduction in the personal injury claims assessment of the taxi-driver’s motor vehicle claim.
Zoney v. Wakefield: Similar Findings in Seat Belt Exemption Cases
Similarly, in Zoney v. Wakefield, [1994] B.C.J. No 1299., the driver was not wearing a seatbelt and did not have his headrest adjusted properly when he was involved in a front-end motor vehicle accident. The court simply said that the “driver took a risk by not wearing a seat-belt despite not being obligated to do so.” As paraphrased in Kazemi v. Sturname (2023) B.C.J. No., 148. (Kazemi). The court concluded that although the taxi driver was statutorily exempted as a taxi driver from wearing a seat belt, he was still negligent for failing to do so.
The Contextual Approach of Alberta Courts to Seat Belt Exemptions
What these two cases (Zoney and Goronzy) illustrate is that courts will not blindly or arbitrarily apply the statutory seat-belt exemptions. Again, while these two cases may be from outside Alberta, they are nonetheless persuasive to how the courts may assess and apply statutory seat belt exemptions to motor vehicle accident claims in Alberta. The courts take a contextual approach to the application of the seat belt exemptions for taxi drivers.
A section similar to section 85 of the Vehicle Equipment Regulation, Alta Reg 122/2009 is section 32.03 of the B.C statute which remains law in that province. The laws in both jurisdictions stipulate that a taxi driver is exempt from the requirement to wear a seatbelt while transporting a passenger for hire in a taxi. A case that takes a more contextual look at these seat belt exemptions is Kazemi. Sturname (2023) B.C.J., No, 148. In Kazemi, liability was readily conceded by the defendant and their insurance company. The outstanding issue was the assessment of the personal injury compensation and whether contributory negligence principles apply to it.
In Kazemi, the court noted that the taxi driver’s decision whether to wear a seat belt or not involved an assessment of risk on his part, as the risk of not wearing a seatbelt has to be weighed against the risk of a seatbelt being used by a passenger to restrain or choke the driver. As part of the factors to be considered in this contextual approach, the court noted that at the time that the accident happened, the plaintiff was driving a taxi on a Saturday night in downtown Vancouver, at a time when the risk of assault by a passenger might well be greatest with a passenger seated behind him. Based on this contextual analysis, the court did not apply a reduction to the plaintiff’s personal injury compensation. The court went on to award a total personal injury settlement of $440,550.00. plus, applicable costs.
Based on the above discussion, it is clear that the seat-belt exemption for taxi drivers is not applied automatically as a blanket saving grace from the application of a contributory negligence to personal injury claim damages assessment. These issues like other areas of personal injury law are complicated and continue to evolve. The factors to consider in this contextual analysis will also continue to change.
Key Takeaways for Taxi Drivers in Alberta
- Taxi drivers should default to always wearing their seatbelts except in situations where they assess the risk of wearing the seat belt higher than the risk of not wearing it.
- Courts will not arbitrarily apply the statutory seat belt exemptions after a car accident.
- A contextual analysis will be applied when assessing the application of the statutory seat belt exemption.
- Contributory negligence principles could still be used to reduce the personal injury compensation of individuals involved in motor vehicle accidents in Alberta depending on the context and overall situation.
Watchmaker Injury Law: One Client at a Time
If you have been involved in a motor vehicle accident in Alberta and you are wondering if you can claim due to issues with your seatbelt usage or lack thereof, you should call us right away at Watchmaker Law…. Our experienced legal team takes a “One Client at a Time” approach to our review of potential cases. We will review your case and let you know the chances of success for your case.
