Ruling upholds that truck driver’s negligence was not factual or legal cause
The British Columbia Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of a man injured in a motor vehicle accident upon finding no reviewable error in the trial judge’s conclusion that a pick-up truck driver’s negligence was not the factual or legal cause.
On Nov. 1, 2017, the appellant in Bezanson v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2026 BCCA 130, was driving his motorcycle when a pick-up truck in front of him drifted from the left lane to the right lane. After he tried to pass the truck using the left lane, he failed to navigate a curve and collided head-on with another vehicle.
The appellant filed an action seeking damages for injuries sustained in the accident. He alleged that the unidentified pick-up truck driver’s negligence caused his injuries and forced him to make an evasive maneuver that resulted in the collision.
Following a trial focusing on liability, on Feb. 5, 2025, a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the appellant’s action. The trial judge found that the appellant failed to establish the pick-up truck driver’s negligence as the collision’s factual or legal cause.
The judge explained that the risk created by the pick-up truck driver’s negligence had abated before the appellant tried to pass the truck. The judge added that the appellant’s decision to transfer to the left lane was not evasive or intended to avoid a collision.
On appeal, the appellant asserted legal errors through the judge’s misapplication of the tests for factual and legal causation and the “agony of the moment” doctrine.
Judge’s decision upheld
The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the appeal.
First, the appeal court saw no misapprehension of the evidence in the trial judge’s assessment of the applicability of the “agony of the moment” doctrine to the appellant’s maneuver of changing lanes. The appeal court found that the appellant simply disagreed with the judge’s factual findings by arguing that he had a very short timeframe to perceive the danger and react accordingly.
Second, the appeal court ruled that the judge did not misapply the “but for” test by focusing on the appellant’s reaction rather than the pick-up truck driver’s contribution. The appeal court saw no reviewable error in the judge’s conclusion that the truck driver’s conduct of drifting to the right lane did not cause the accident.
Third, the appeal court rejected the appellant’s argument that the judge mischaracterized the requirement of reasonable foreseeability in determining legal causation and required an overly specific foreseeability of the sequence of events.
The appeal court did not find it necessary to decide whether the judge erroneously analyzed legal causation. The appeal court noted that the appellant bore the burden of establishing both factual and legal causation.
“In my view, it is not rational to attempt to assess whether it would be fair to attach legal liability for injury to particular conduct without first concluding that the conduct caused the injury,” wrote Justice Lisa Warren for the appeal court. “Put another way, it would be logically incoherent to ask if an event was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of conduct that did not, in fact, cause the event.”
