A tragic accident on Canada Day in 2023 led to a complex legal battle in British Columbia that forces us to look closely at how the law defines the ground beneath our feet. This case of R. v. Machura which was recently released addresses this issue.
Mr. Machura was driving north on Highway 97A toward Enderby. As he approached a marked crosswalk, he struck and killed a pedestrian who had suddenly run into the path of his vehicle. Mr. Machura was subsequently charged with driving without due care and attention under the Motor Vehicle Act.
While the human tragedy is undeniable, the legal resolution of the case turned on a highly technical distinction between what constitutes a “highway” and what constitutes a “sidewalk” or “roadway,” and how those definitions dictate a driver’s legal responsibilities.
The collision happened at a crosswalk equipped with yellow flashing lights activated by pressing a button on a pole. On that day, traffic was moderate to heavy. Mr. Machura was driving roughly 10 to 20 kilometres per hour below the speed limit. Witnesses saw the pedestrian approach the crosswalk and make motions as if he were pressing the button twice. However, the lights never started flashing.
Despite the lights remaining off, the pedestrian waited a few seconds and then suddenly darted onto the highway. The court found that because the lights were not active and the pedestrian moved so quickly, Mr. Machura had effectively no time to react before the collision.
The most fascinating part of the judge’s decision involves the interpretation of the Motor Vehicle Act regarding where a driver’s specific duties to a pedestrian begin.
The Crown argued that the definition of “highway” should include the entire area where the pedestrian was standing while he waited to cross. However, the judge disagreed, noting that the Act defines a highway primarily as a place designed or intended for the “passage of vehicles.”
Under this legal framework, a highway is divided into different zones, the most important being the “roadway,” which is the portion actually used for vehicular traffic. The judge concluded that on this stretch, the roadway was strictly the area between the solid white lines, also known as “lateral lines.” This means that the “highway” ends at that white line.
The court found that the area where the pedestrian was standing, near the crosswalk pole and behind the white line, was not part of the highway at all. Instead, it was classified as either a sidewalk or a boulevard.
Under the law, a sidewalk is an area between the roadway’s edge and the property line that has been improved for the use of pedestrians. While much of the area was just dirt, gravel, and weeds, a small paved portion marked with crosswalk paint was technically a sidewalk because paving counts as an improvement.
The judge reasoned that since vehicles are generally prohibited from driving on sidewalks or boulevards, these areas cannot be considered part of the highway designed for vehicle passage. This distinction fundamentally changes the legal zone of duty for a driver.
Section 144.1 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which creates an additional duty for drivers to take proper precautions regarding vulnerable road users on a highway. The Crown tried to use this to argue that Mr. Machura should have been more cautious while the pedestrian was standing by the pole.
However, the judge ruled that because the pedestrian was on a sidewalk or boulevard, he was not yet using a highway. The judge noted that the legislature specifically chose to limit this extra duty to people on the highway itself, excluding those on adjacent pedestrian paths. Therefore, Mr. Machura’s legal obligation to yield the right of way only began the moment the pedestrian stepped over the white line and entered the roadway. By that time, the pedestrian was only a car length away, making a collision inevitable even for a perfect driver.
Beyond the technical zones of the road, the court had to consider whether Mr. Machura was keeping a proper lookout as a reasonable and prudent driver would. This is where the evidence regarding visibility became central.
On the day of the accident, the pedestrian was wearing black clothing. He was standing near a hydro pole and a chest-high bush. As Mr. Machura drove toward him, the background behind the pedestrian was dark. A police re-enactment showed that even an officer in uniform was difficult to see against that dark background unless the driver was specifically looking for a person standing in that exact spot. One witness driving directly behind Mr. Machura described seeing the pedestrian only as a blur when he started running. This suggested he was basically invisible while standing there.
The court also looked at Mr. Machura’s driving habits leading up to the moment of impact. He testified that he was familiar with the area, scanning for pedestrians, and driving slowly because he knew it was a busy spot. He had previously thought the bush near the pole was a safety risk that should be cleared. The judge found Mr. Machura was a credible witness whose testimony was largely unchallenged by the prosecution. The fact that he was driving below the limit and watching the vehicle in front of him (which also passed through the crosswalk without braking)supported the idea that he was being attentive to the road conditions.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the Crown had failed to prove careless driving beyond a reasonable doubt. To convict, the court would have had to find that a reasonable driver should have seen the pedestrian and anticipated his sudden dash onto the road. However, the combination of the dark clothing, the dark background, the lack of flashing warning lights, and the speed at which the pedestrian ran into the roadway gave rise to no realistic opportunity to avoid the accident. While drivers must be wary of pedestrians near the road, they are entitled to rely on the fact that other road users will generally follow the law and not dart into traffic so close that it is not reasonable to stop.
The acquittal rested on the legal reality that a sidewalk is a separate entity from a highway roadway. Because the pedestrian was not on the highway until the very last second, the driver did not violate his statutory duties by failing to stop earlier. Mr. Machura exercised due diligence by keeping a proper lookout and maintaining a safe speed, but was faced with an unobservable hazard.
While the case ended in an acquittal, the judge did note that the intersection was altered after the accident to make it safer. This clearly shows the tragic reality that sometimes our road designs and legal definitions are only made safe after a life has been lost.
