Emergency Vehicle Accidents

Kelly Tang

When there is a crisis, we rely on emergency responders such as the police, paramedics, and firefighters to attend the scene of the crisis as fast as possible. To accomplish this, drivers of emergency vehicles are permitted by law to exceed speed limits and disregard certain traffic regulations in urgent situations. However, these special privileges do not automatically absolve the driver of an emergency vehicle from liability when, while responding to an urgent situation, the driver is involved in a car accident. Alford v Canada, 2010 ABQB 192, shines a light on what can happen in these circumstances.

In 2002 Daniel and Brandy Alford, along with their son and Brandy’s brother, were driving to the hospital when they pulled over and let an RCMP cruiser pass them. Afterward, they merged back onto the road and continued toward the hospital. Daniel had slowed down and was preparing to yield to make a left-hand turn at an intersection when their vehicle was rear-ended by a second RCMP cruiser also responding to the emergency. Both cruisers had their lights and sirens activated. Daniel saw the first RCMP cruiser approach behind him and properly yielded the right of way to this vehicle, but he testified that he did not see or hear the second RCMP cruiser until immediately before the collision, and as such he did not have time to react.

The Alfords filed a lawsuit seeking compensation. At trial, the Court found that the Constable driving the second RCMP cruiser was negligent and liable for causing the accident because:

• The Constable was driving at least 80 km/hour while approaching the intersection, even though his view of the intersection was impeded by the topography of the road. He knew or ought to have known about this impediment as he had worked as a police office in the area for several years prior to the accident.
• The speed he was driving was disproportionate to the urgency of the situation. The Constable was aware that his colleague driving the first cruiser was ahead of him, and that Fire and EMS were already at the scene. He would have been at least the fourth responder to attend the scene.
• The Constable had looked right in the seconds leading to the accident rather than scanning the road ahead of him.
• He did not attempt to brake until just before impact.

This case raises concerning implications for emergency responders. However, the driver of an emergency vehicle can successfully defend against a finding of liability by showing that their actions were reasonable and made with due care under the circumstances. It goes without saying that every driver on the road, including an emergency responder, is required to keep a proper lookout and apply their brakes promptly when needed.