Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appeal focused on a jury’s finding that the defendant was not liable for a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

• The trial judge failed to instruct the jury on specific legal duties under the Motor Vehicle Act.

• Closing submissions by counsel introduced conflicting claims about the legality of the plaintiff’s driving without corresponding judicial clarification.

• The jury awarded damages to the plaintiff but found the defendant breached no duty of care.

• A critical legal error occurred due to inadequate jury instructions regarding both drivers' obligations.

• The appellate court ordered a new trial limited to the issue of liability, setting aside the jury’s verdict.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and accident circumstances
This case arose from a motor vehicle collision on February 18, 2020, near Trail, British Columbia. The plaintiff, Avinash Gandha, was exiting her driveway to make a short trip on Highway 3B. She merged into the right-hand lane, reportedly driving around 30–35 km/h. Moments later, her vehicle was struck from behind by the defendant, Maxime Beauchesne, who had been following another vehicle in the same lane.

Multiple witnesses testified about the circumstances leading to the accident. Ms. Gandha claimed she signaled and merged safely. A third-party witness, Natalie Doig, who was driving ahead of Mr. Beauchesne, managed to change lanes and avoid the collision. Mr. Beauchesne testified that he was unable to change lanes due to a nearby pickup truck and had insufficient time to stop after Ms. Gandha entered the lane.

Trial proceedings and jury verdict
Following a 14-day jury trial, the jury found that Ms. Gandha had sustained $752,000 in damages but determined that Mr. Beauchesne was not liable for the accident. As a result, the jury did not consider the issue of contributory negligence. Notably, the jury was not given legal instructions specific to drivers’ obligations to yield, avoid slow driving, or maintain a safe following distance, despite these being central to the case.

Appeal and appellate court’s reasoning
Ms. Gandha appealed the decision, arguing that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the applicable legal standards under the Motor Vehicle Act. The appellate court agreed, highlighting that both parties’ counsel had made strong and opposing claims regarding the legality of the plaintiff's driving during their closing arguments. However, the trial judge did not clarify the relevant statutory duties or explain how those duties should influence the jury’s assessment of liability.

The Court of Appeal found that this omission constituted a legal error. It stressed that jurors could have misunderstood the legal significance of certain driving behaviors—particularly whether potentially illegal actions by the plaintiff automatically negated the defendant's duty of care. The absence of instruction on key provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, such as sections 144, 145, 162, and 176, left the jury without essential legal guidance.

Outcome and remedy ordered
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the first ground and ordered a new trial limited to the question of liability. The court declined to substitute its own assessment of liability, emphasizing that the case required a fresh jury evaluation under correct legal instruction. The damages award remained undisputed, as the defendant’s cross-appeal on that issue was abandoned.