Advertisement

Failed Newfoundland lawsuit blaming government for moose-vehicle collisions set for appeal

Failed Newfoundland lawsuit blaming government for moose-vehicle collisions set for appeal

A case pitting the plight of Newfoundland drivers against the fate of moose will get another day in court, after a personal injury lawyer leading a lawsuit against the provincial government announced a court date for the appeal.

Ches Crosbie posted a notice on his law firm’s website that the Moose Vehicle Class Action appeal would be heard by the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal on Jan. 21, 2015.

He will ask them to overturn a decision by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, which ruled that the government wasn’t responsible for the accidents of 135 plaintiffs injured in moose-vehicle collisions since 2001.

"The argument which I will present is that the trial judge in the common issues trial made errors of law, which led him wrongly to dismiss the case," Crosbie wrote.

"In order for the seriously injured plaintiffs in the case to win, all the Court of Appeal need to do is apply the settled or established law, and nothing novel is called for."

Crosbie claims the government is on the hook for the cost of damage and injury because “by law it is responsible for both highway safety and managing the moose population.”

The case was dismissed in September when Judge Robert Stack ruled that the province wasn’t responsible for the accidents and had taken reasonable steps to prevent them.

There are believed to be between 600 and 800 moose-vehicle collisions in Newfoundland every year.

The danger is so prevalent that earlier this year the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary released a warning about moose sightings, reminding the public not to stop their cars to take photos, and for traffic to obviously yield to moose.

There are also road signs warning drivers to slow down and watch for wildlife. Though as anyone who has driven on Canadian highways knows, not every accident is avoidable. The idea that a collision should be blamed on the government seems somewhat far-fetched.

By Crosbie’s own admission, the notion seemed “crazy” to him as well, at first.

But he argues that since the provincial government introduced moose to Newfoundland in the early 1900s and exterminated their only predator, the wolf. They then built a highway across the island in the 1960s, disrupting their habitat.

The notion that someone else can be blamed for a moose-vehicle collision did gain some legitimacy recently, however, after a B.C. driver was found liable for failing to warn others of a dangerously-located carcass.

The B.C. Supreme Court found 71-year-old Harris Wheeler liable for a two-car collision after he had failed to warn other motorists about a moose he had struck.

According to the Prince George Citizen, Harris struck a moose while driving on Highway 97 in 2011, and delayed returning to the scene for more than 20 minutes.

During that time, another driver had struck the moose’s body, lost control of his truck and careened into oncoming traffic.

The ruling in that case is based on the specifics, and it would be a stretch to translate that case into precedent to find a province responsible for accidents in general.

But Crosbie must have faith that there is precedent somewhere.