How may a defendant negate the inference of negligence by raising the defence of explanation or defence of inevitable accident?

A defendant may negate the inference of negligence by raising the defence of explanation or the defence of inevitable accident: Holt v. Rother, 2013 BCSC 1065 at para. 10. The difference between the defence of explanation and that of inevitable accident is set out in Perry v. Banno (1993), 1993 CanLII 259 (BC SC), 80 B.C.L.R. (2d) 351 at 354 (S.C.). The defence of explanation rests on circumstances external to the driver, such as the presence of black ice on the road. To prove the defence of explanation, the defendant only needs to establish how the collision may have occurred reasonably without negligence on their part. On the other hand, the defence of inevitable accident arises from circumstances wholly within the defendant himself and requires the defendant to prove the collision could not have been prevented by reasonable care on his part which imposes a much higher onus on the defendant.