[3] Brock Road and the 5th Concession West are both two-lane
roads. There was no stop sign governing the flow of northbound
and southbound traffic on Brock Road. The posted speed limit on
Brock Road was 80 km/h.
[4] It is undisputed that the stop sign governing the flow of
westbound traffic at the intersection was between 8.4 and 9.41
metres behind a faded stop line, painted in 2004, which in
turn was between 1.936 and 2.936 metres behind the easterly
entrance to the intersection. (Put another way, the stop sign
was between 10.336 and 12.336 metres from the east edge of
Brock Road.)
[5] Counsel conceded that Mr. Ellis, the driver of the westbound vehicle, was negligent in entering the intersection when
it was unsafe to do so. Although at trial Mr. Ellis claimed he
stopped at a stop line, he could not recall where it was located
and he made statements at the time of the accident that he
stopped at the stop sign. The trial judge found that Mr. Ellis
stopped at the stop sign, but then accelerated into the intersection without seeing the northbound vehicle, thus causing the
collision. Mr. Ellis had no explanation for why he did not see
the northbound vehicle.
[6] Relying in part on expert testimony from Jason Young,
a forensic engineer, the trial judge also found the Corporation of
the City of Hamilton breached its duty to keep the roadway in
a reasonable state of repair by failing to repaint a faded stop line
that was no longer effective in guiding drivers concerning where
to stop. He concluded the city was thus 50 per cent responsible
for the accident. On the trial judge’s findings, had Mr. Ellis
stopped at the faded stop line, which the trial judge accepted
was his usual practice, he would have been able to see 270 metres
south on Brock Road and the accident would never have
happened.
[7] The city raises several issues on appeal. In our view, its
argument that, in finding non-repair, the trial judge misapplied
the ordinary reasonable driver standard is dispositive and it is
unnecessary that we address the remaining grounds of appeal.
_____________
1 This range was the result of differing measurements by different experts.
Jason Young, the expert called by the plaintiffs to give opinion evidence
concerning human factors and road design factors that play a role in collisions, testified that he measured the distance between the faded stop and
a new stop line by photographic analysis as being between two to three
metres. Another expert measured the same distance as four metres, which
Mr. Young considered reasonable.
