What is the relative degree of fault of in a motor vehicle accident?

A number of factors may be relevant in assessing relative degrees of fault. In Aberdeen v. Langley (Township), Zanatta, Cassels, 2007 BCSC 993, (reversed in part: Aberdeen v. Zanatta, 2008 BCCA 420) at paras. 62-63, Groves J. enumerated and reviewed the factors for assessing relative degrees of fault. And in MacEachern v. Rennie, 2010 BCSC 625, at para. 651 Ehrcke J. noted the factors included the following: 1. The nature of the duty owed by the tortfeasor to the injured person; 2. The number of acts of fault or negligence committed by a person at fault; 3. The timing of the various negligent acts. For example, the party who first commits a negligent act will usually be more at fault than the party whose negligence comes as a result of the initial fault; 4. The nature of the conduct held to amount to fault. For example, indifference to the results of the conduct may be more blameworthy. Similarly, a deliberate departure from safety rules may be more blameworthy than an imperfect reaction to a crisis; 5. The extent to which the conduct breaches statutory requirements. For example, in a motor vehicle collision, the driver of the vehicle with the right of way may be less blameworthy; 6. The gravity of the risk created; 7. The extent of the opportunity to avoid or prevent the accident or the damage; 8. Whether the conduct in question was deliberate, or unusual or unexpected; and, 9. The knowledge one person had or should have had of the conduct of another person at fault.