A Montreal woman who fell on a sidewalk while walking to her car will have to be compensated by the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ), the courts recently decided.
The decision is a further expansion of what constitutes an “automotive accident” and could give rise to claims from thousands of Quebecers who are injured each year by falling on the way to their car, on ice, for example.
In 2015, Sondra Sherman was leaving a post office carrying a package and heading towards the trunk of her car when her foot fell through a broken manhole in Montreal. Her leg “sinked into the cavity up to the thigh” and suffered serious injuries, reported a judge of the Court of Quebec, in 2021. She was not in physical contact with her car and her trunk was still farm.
The magistrate determined that as she was heading towards her trunk at the time of the accident, “the harm that the plaintiff suffered is an automobile accident within the meaning of the Act”. “Only the Automobile Insurance Company has jurisdiction to compensate the plaintiff,” the decision continues.
Mme Sherman would have preferred to be compensated by the City of Montreal, which she was suing for $15,000. It was the municipal lawyers who forced the SAAQ to get involved in the case by arguing that it was an automobile accident. Justice ruled in their favor.
The decision of the Court of Quebec was confirmed by Judge Marc St-Pierre of the Superior Court on January 11. “The victim was getting off the sidewalk to place his package in the trunk, this is not only an intention, but it is a fact,” he wrote.
“The Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec takes note of the judgment and will not comment on this matter,” indicated its spokesperson, Gino Desrosiers.
“A nightmare” for the SAAQ
The decision regarding M’s injuriesme Sherman is only the latest broadening of the definition of events which must be subject to compensation by the SAAQ.
“It’s certain that for the SAAQ, it’s a nightmare. Because they see the notion of accident [s’élargir] more and more,” analyzes Marc Bellemare, former Minister of Justice and lawyer specializing in administrative law. He himself frequently fights for a broader definition of “automobile accident”.
PHOTO ERICK LABBÉ, LE SOLEIL ARCHIVES
Marc Bellemare, former Minister of Justice and lawyer specializing in administrative law
In 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a man killed by a tree that fell on his car was the victim of an automobile accident.
“We must give a broad and liberal interpretation to the Act” on the SAAQ, ruled the judges, explaining that any accident linked to the use of a car was a car accident.
“Since then, there has been an outbreak,” said M.e Bellemare. “It’s certain that it gives better coverage to accident victims. » The decision rendered in the case of Mme Sherman opens a new frontier in compensation, he said.
Because in recent years, the lower courts have followed suit. In 2013, a man killed in the collapse of an underground parking lot was considered a road accident. In 2018, the courts ordered the SAAQ to compensate a man who was injured while clearing snow from his car. In 2023, a man who suffered serious frostbite while going to seek help after leaving the road was also considered a road accident victim.
Each time, the SAAQ fought against the expansion of its mandate.
The organization did not wish to comment on this situation.
“A double-edged sword”
However, expanding the definition of automobile accident is not good news for all victims.
Several, like Mme Sherman, would have preferred to sue the person, company or municipality they consider to be at fault rather than settle for compensation from the SAAQ. The latter are often less generous than the compensation ordered by the courts for comparable injuries.
But the Quebec “no-fault” auto insurance plan (no fault) prohibits any prosecution for bodily injury linked to an auto accident. Only the SAAQ can be held responsible.
“It’s a double-edged sword,” explained M.e Marc Bellemare.
For example, the family of the man killed in the collapse of an underground parking lot believed they could obtain ten times more compensation by suing the owner of the premises than by simply receiving a check from the SAAQ.