Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff claimed negligence after a gate arm struck his vehicle on Highway 99, alleging failure to secure traffic control infrastructure.

• The central legal question was whether Mainroad breached the applicable standard of care as a road maintenance contractor.

• Evidence on wind conditions, which the plaintiff argued caused the gate malfunction, was limited and found unpersuasive.

• Expert testimony conflicted on whether the plaintiff's health decline was accident-related or due to pre-existing conditions.

• The court held that Mainroad’s conduct complied with its contractual obligations and industry norms.

• No liability or causation was found, and the plaintiff’s claim for over $9 million in damages was dismissed.

Facts and outcome of the case

Bradley Darren Gordica filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia after a single-vehicle accident on December 18, 2019. While driving on Highway 99 southbound toward the George Massey Tunnel, a mechanical gate arm (Gate 2C) used for traffic control swung into his lane and shattered his windshield. Although he was not physically struck, he claimed the incident caused physical and psychological injuries that ultimately forced him to leave his position as an equity partner at Deloitte, where he worked as an international tax accountant.

Gordica sued Mainroad Lower Mainland Contracting Limited Partnership, the road maintenance contractor responsible for the George Massey Tunnel infrastructure, and initially named several other parties, including ICBC and the Province of British Columbia. However, the trial focused solely on Mainroad, and the claims against the other defendants were either abandoned or discontinued.

The plaintiff’s theory and Mainroad’s defence

The plaintiff argued that wind caused the gate arm to fail and that Mainroad’s Massey 25 Operator, Mr. Perra, was negligent for failing to secure Gate 2C when he had earlier tied back a nearby gate (Gate 2B) under similar circumstances. He claimed this omission breached the standard of care and was the proximate cause of the accident. The plaintiff sought over $9 million in damages, primarily for income loss, pension loss, and long-term care.

Mainroad denied any negligence, arguing that the incident was a rare and unforeseeable event. The company contended that it adhered to the Ministry’s maintenance standards and protocols and that there was no policy or requirement to secure all gates during wind events. Mainroad also disputed that wind was a factor in the gate's malfunction, highlighting the lack of meteorological evidence and the plaintiff’s own ability to hold an umbrella comfortably during the incident.

Key evidentiary findings

The court was not persuaded that wind caused the accident, finding no strong evidence supporting this theory. Testimony from multiple Mainroad and Ministry personnel, along with photographs and wind data from nearby weather stations, failed to establish that conditions were severe or unusual. The court also found no basis to conclude that Mainroad should have tied back Gate 2C or that its failure to do so constituted a breach of the standard of care.

Regarding damages, the court noted that while the plaintiff did suffer some soft tissue injuries and possibly a mild whiplash, the more significant symptoms—chronic pain, cognitive issues, and psychological distress—were not clearly attributable to the accident. Expert evidence showed a history of ADHD, insomnia, anxiety, and workplace stress. The plaintiff had stopped taking ADHD medication shortly before the incident, which the court found relevant to his post-accident decline. Ultimately, the court concluded that his inability to work was due to these pre-existing conditions rather than the gate strike.

Final judgment and costs

Justice Masuhara held that Mainroad was not liable and dismissed the action. Although the court calculated hypothetical damages exceeding $3.8 million, including income loss and pension reduction, no damages were awarded since liability and causation were not established. While costs were not explicitly addressed, the usual rule would entitle the prevailing defendant to seek costs.