An uninsured driver who was struck and killed 40 metres away from her vehicle while trying to flag down help from the shoulder of a remote highway was in fact involved in a motor vehicle accident, Canada’s top court has confirmed.

The driver who struck her sued her estate for the post-traumatic disorder symptoms he suffered as a result of the tragic accident. Since the uninsured woman was found to have met the legal definition of using or operating her vehicle at the time, Alberta’s administrator of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act is now liable to pay for the damages.

“While the administrator proposes that the passage of a certain amount of time after leaving a vehicle or travelling a certain distance from a vehicle can disentitle a claimant to coverage, we decline to draw any bright lines relating to time or distance,” the Court of Appeal of Alberta ruled in May 2024.

“While the passage of time after exiting a vehicle or the distance removed from a vehicle might be relevant, depending on the circumstances, the inquiry remains focused on the chain of causation linking a plaintiff’s injuries to the ordinary use and operation of the vehicle. In the particular facts in this matter, the chain of causation was unbroken.”

The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear an appeal from the Alberta Appeal Court’s decision, meaning the decision now stands. As is customary, the top court does not issue reasons why it declines to hear an appeal.

It’s among a litany of legal decisions regarding what it means to use or operate a vehicle.

The background

Verna Baptiste ran out of gas at night on a rural highway on Oct. 1, 2015. She put on her four-way hazard lights and left a passenger inside her vehicle while she tried to find help.

Sometime after leaving her vehicle, she entered the roadway under the influence of alcohol, tried to wave down assistance, and was struck by another vehicle driven by Brodie Daniel Plante.

Plante was driving a pickup truck, towing a trailer containing a jeep. On this occasion, he was helping a friend move his personal possessions. He was travelling southbound on Highway 22 in Alberta, coming from Cochrane and Highway 1, when he saw Baptiste’s parked vehicle with its hazard lights on. He slowed down, thinking pedestrians could be in the vicinity.

After passing the vehicle, he noticed what appeared to be a person with hand raised on his right side from the southbound shoulder. He swerved hard to his left, but was unable to avoid a collision at the corner of his right, passenger-side mirror.

Baptiste died at the scene.

In other news: Crystal ball: Canada’s P&C insurance outlook for 2025

As a result of the incident, Plante suffered psychological injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder. He sued Baptiste’s estate for compensation. Since the estate was in default, and Baptiste was an uninsured driver, he made a claim against the province’s Motor Vehicle Claims fund.

At the lower court, the administrator of the fund disputed Baptiste was using or operating her vehicle at the time of the collision. It argued the ‘chain of causation’ between her driving and getting hit had been broken after she left the parked vehicle in search of help.

The lower court disagreed.

“Motorists looking for assistance after running out of fuel are within the expectation of users of a highway,” Alberta’s Court of the King’s Bench ruled. “This can be seen by Mr. Plante’s reducing speed and looking for pedestrians when he saw the parked vehicle, with hazard flashers, on a shoulder of the highway.

“Further, clearly Ms. Baptiste had not abandoned the use of her vehicle, evidenced by activating her hazard lights, leaving a passenger in the vehicle, and being found about forty metres from her vehicle. She was doing what was necessary to continue the use of her vehicle, namely, [procuring] assistance to get fuel.”

The administrator appealed, but the Court of Appeal of Alberta — and now the Supreme Court of Canada — saw no reason to reverse the lower court’s decision.