In Theiss v. Shorter, the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident when she turned left on an amber light, and was struck by the Defendant, who had been traveling at an excessive rate of speed. The Plaintiff commenced formal legal proceedings, and eventually there was a liability only trial, rather than a trial on quantum and liability at the same time.
In the vast majority of cases, left turning vehicles at an intersection are deemed to be at fault when struck by an oncoming motorist.
In the case at bar, ICBC’S lawyer argued that the Plaintiff was negligent by making a left turn across the Defendant’s path when the Defendant was so close to the intersection that he constituted an immediate hazard. Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the accident was caused by the excessive speed of the Defendant.
In relation to the left turning vehicle, the Court considered section 174 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which reads :
When a vehicle is in an intersection and its driver intends to turn left, the driver must yield the right of way to traffic approaching from the opposite direction that is in the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard, but having yielded and given a signal as required by sections 171 and 172, the driver may turn the vehicle to the left, and traffic approaching the intersection from the opposite direction must yield the right of way to the vehicle making the left turn.
With respect to the issue of speed, the Court considered section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which reads :
Where traffic control devices as indicated in section 138 or 139 are erected or placed on the highway, a person must not drive or operate a vehicle at a greater rate of speed than, or in a manner different from, that indicated on the signs.
The Court found there to be inconsistencies in the Defendant’s testimony, and preferred the Plaintiff’s evidence.
The Plaintiff relied on the report of an engineering and accident reconstuctionist, and the Defendant relied on an expert to critique the report, however the Court preferred the evidence of the Plaintiff’s expert.
The Court would eventually find the Defendant to be solely liable for the accident, focusing on the issues of the speed that the Defendant’s vehicle was traveling at, and how the Plaintiff was there to be seen.
 I found the opinions in Mr. Dinn’s report, reinforced by his response to rigorous cross-examination and some questions from the Court, to be logical, reasonable and persuasive, and the assumptions on which he based his opinions to be supported by the evidence. I conclude that Mr. Shorter was travelling at an excessive rate of speed as he approached the intersection − probably a speed in excess of 100 kph and possibly as great as 110 kph − more than twice the posted speed limit.
 Ms. Theiss commenced her left turn when the defendant’s vehicle − had it not been been travelling at an excessive speed − was sufficiently far from the intersection that it did not pose a hazard. She could not, in my view, have anticipated that the approaching vehicle was travelling at twice the posted speed limit. As such, and given that she was well into her turn when Mr. Shorter approached the intersection, he was obliged to yield to her.
 Mr. Shorter knew, I conclude, that the light at Chancellor Avenue for traffic on Helmcken Road had been green almost from the time he entered Helmcken Road and should have anticipated that it would turn to amber or red before he reached the intersection. He also knew that there was a southbound vehicle stopped at the intersection waiting to make a left turn. He was aware there was no left turn light and that vehicles wishing to turn left often did so on an amber light. Had he not been driving at an excessive rate of speed he could have stopped before entering the intersection, or had a greater opportunity to consider his options and to avoid the swerve to the right that was a contributing factor in the collision.
 This is, in my view, one of those rare instances in which the left-turning servient driver is not at fault. Ms. Theiss drove in a prudent and reasonable manner − stopping twice to check the distance from the intersection of the oncoming vehicle; and checking to ensure no pedestrians or cyclists were in the crosswalk. She was familiar with the intersection and able to make a reasonable estimate of when she could safely make it through the intersection before oncoming traffic reached the intersection. She could not reasonably have predicted the highly excessive rate of speed at which I have concluded Mr. Shorter was travelling.
 I find Mr. Shorter’s negligence in driving at an excessive rate of speed and failing to keep a proper look-out for left-turning vehicles to be the sole cause of the accident.