How have courts determined that speed was a factor in a fatal collision involving a moose?

The defendant cited Blaine v. Hopkins, [1990] B.C.J. No. 2724 to me to show how the present case is distinguishable. The defendant driver was driving east of Jasper in the province of Alberta at 12:30 in the morning. He was driving 70 miles an hour (112 KPH) in a 90 KPH zone and there were warning signs of animals on the highway. The defendant driver did not slow down, although the passenger had asked him to do so a number of times. The defendant saw a moose, pulled into the left lane to try and drive around it and said the moose then moved into that lane and he hit it. The passenger said there were about 2 seconds between the time the driver swerved to the time he actually applied his brakes. She saw the moose 120 to 130 yards down the highway when the driver yelled out “moose”. She saw a big dark shape on the road, standing not running. The court found that he saw the moose 300 feet away, that if he had been travelling 90 kilometre an hour, he could have stopped his vehicle in 265 feet and avoided the accident and that speed was really the primary factor.

Colobong v. Robinson, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1842 (B.C.S.C.). The court found that the moose in that case darted out in front of the car. If it had been on the highway and she failed to see it, she would have been negligent. The court found there was sufficient light on the highway to see a large object. She may have been negligent as well if the moose had been standing on highway and she failed to take any precaution.

Sinclair v. Nyehold, [1972] 5 W.W.R. BCCA. This case really is not applicable in our circumstance as a bee flew into the vehicle, landed on the driver’s stomach and he froze. The court found that he did not exercise reasonable skill and care or reasonable self possession when he froze and that’s what caused the accident. That was negligent.