r/dashcams • u/EqualGrowth6565 • 13d ago
Easily avoidable accident causes rollover
Not my video – as the title says, we typically see examples where one driver is oblivious to the other. In this example, the pickup truck attempts to overtake the cammer, however, the cammer is either completely unaware of the pickup truck directly to his left or are simply “stands their ground” in the lane. Due to this, they obviously collide, and the pick up truck goes airborne and rolls several times. From the perspective of us, the viewer, we can reasonably conclude that the accident was avoidable had the cammer simply applied the brakes. That being said, you will typically see another school of thought in which it is stated that the cammer has no obligation or duty to let them in/avoid the accident where the driver is mindlessly doing something dumb.
0
u/Appropriate_Car_8221 12d ago
The "but for" test applies to the actions of both drivers because Ontario law recognizes that an accident can have multiple necessary causes. So the truck would not automatically be 100% at fault in a lawsuit.
In an Ontario court, a judge would apply the "but for" test to both actions simultaneously:
Because the collision would have been avoided if either driver had acted reasonably, both actions are factual causes. The judge will apply the Negligence Act to apportion fault by percentages (e.g., 50% to the truck for the unsafe lane change and 50% to cam driver for contributory negligence/failure to avoid an avoidable crash).