In Chow-Hidasi v. Hidasi, the Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her husband, which lost control on slippery roads, and crashed into two concrete barriers. The Plaintiff sustained injuries, and consequently brought an ICBC claim for damages for pain and suffering, economic loss, and future care. The Plaintiff alleged that her husband was traveling at an excessive rate of speed, and that the tires had insufficient tread. ICBC’S lawyer argued that the Court should determine that the accident occurred due to events beyond the Defendant’s control i.e. there was a mechanical failure. The matter proceeded via a summary trial route, with the trial judge ruling that there could not be a finding of negligence against the Defendant, a ruling that was upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
 I am satisfied that the manner in which Mr. Hidasi maintained his vehicle was reasonable. I am satisfied that the brake and steering failure he experienced was unexpected and was not discoverable through the exercise of reasonable care.
 Moreover, if the defendant had simply done nothing, it is likely the vehicle would have continued to track around the gentle curve it was in and come to rest without incident. She argues that applying the emergency brake, particularly with the force that the defendant applied it, was negligent and caused the accident. Finally, she argues that Mr. Hidasi should have geared down using the automatic transmission to slow the vehicle down.
 I am not satisfied the defendant’s reaction to the circumstances he unexpectedly faced was unreasonable. First, there is no suggestion that Mr. Hidasi was in some fashion shocked into inaction and delayed responding to what he reasonably perceived as an emergency. To the contrary, all of the evidence suggests that he responded immediately. Second, it may well have been that if Mr. Hidasi was a stronger individual or simply redoubled his efforts at attempting to manually steer and manually brake the vehicle he would have been successful. I do not accept that he knew that, or should have known that. Rather, I find that he tried his level best to steer and brake. He perceived that both of these options were ineffective and he needed to adopt an alternative course and do that quickly. From his perspective he had two options: either do nothing or engage the emergency brake. Choosing the latter was not an unreasonable course of action. When it gave rise to unexpected consequences and in effect created a further danger, Mr. Hidasi responded to that. He immediately disengaged the emergency brake. By that point, however, he was unable to alter the path of travel of the vehicle and the collision occurred. It may be that the vehicle would have tracked around the curve it was on without difficulty if Mr. Hidasi had done nothing. It may also be that had he geared down using the automatic transmission he would have been able to stop the vehicle without incident. It may be that adopting either or both of those courses of action would have been better than adopting the course that Mr. Hidasi did. This issue is not whether he took the best course of action, but whether he responded reasonably, bearing in mind the tolerance the law affords to what might be described as errors in judgment committed by a driver faced with an emergency situation.