Left-Turn Car Accidents in Ontario: Who Is Usually at Fault?

The left-turning driver is usually the person at fault if they turn across the path of an oncoming vehicle in Ontario. Under Rule 12(5) of Ontario’s Fault Determination Rules, the left-turning vehicle is assigned 100% fault in the conventional scenario where it turns into the path of an oncoming vehicle, subject to other rules in the Regulation that may apply. Liability in a personal injury lawsuits are determined separately and liability can sometimes be shared if the through driver’s negligence also contributed to the collision.

That distinction becomes important in serious intersection crashes involving disputed speed, sightlines or traffic signals. Foster Injury Law’s Ontario car accident lawyers can represent those injured in crashes throughout the province, including cases where the drivers give very different accounts of how the crash occurred.

Ontario law places a heavy obligation on the left-turning driver

Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act places significant obligations on drivers who are turning left across opposing traffic.

Section 141(5) provides that a driver in an intersection cannot turn left across the path of a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction unless the approaching driver has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to avoid a collision.

The rule reflects the risk created by crossing an active lane of oncoming traffic. The turning driver is in a position to wait until there is enough time and distance to complete the turn safely.

Ontario courts have treated that obligation seriously. For example, in Juneja v. Samra, 2016 ONSC 5502, the defendant attempted to turn left across two lanes of opposing traffic near Vaughan Mills. The driver in the lane closest to her stopped and waved her through. She proceeded across that lane but then collided with a vehicle travelling through the next lane.

The court found that there was no basis for assigning liability to the through driver. The turning driver relied on the other motorist’s gesture rather than satisfying herself that the remaining lane was clear. She had not seen the approaching vehicle before impact, and there was no evidence that it had been travelling at an unreasonable speed or could have avoided the collision.

The decision illustrates that being waved through by one driver does not establish that the rest of the roadway is clear.

Right of way does not end the liability analysis

Drivers travelling straight normally have the right of way over any vehicle intending to turn left across their lane. However, that does not give the through driver an unrestricted right to continue regardless of what is developing ahead.

The harder question is usually when the danger became apparent and whether the through driver still had a reasonable opportunity to respond.

That distinction can be seen by comparing two Ontario decisions. In Thiruchelvam v. Sohal, 2019 ONSC 7405, the left-turning driver entered the path of a vehicle travelling straight through a green light on Hurontario Street in Brampton. The court placed most of the responsibility on the turning driver, but not all of it.

In that situation, the through driver was travelling approximately 60 to 70 km/h and did not slow as she approached a busy intersection. Her view of vehicles waiting to turn left was partly obstructed and several vehicles had already turned ahead of her. The court concluded that those circumstances should have caused her to approach more cautiously.

Liability was divided 90% against the left-turning driver and 10% against the through driver.

Compare that with Mayers v. Khan, 2017 ONSC 200, aff’d 2017 ONCA 524. In that case, a driver waiting to turn left on Lawrence Avenue in Toronto turned across the path of an approaching Brink’s truck. The truck was travelling approximately 60 to 70 km/h in a 60 km/h zone. The turning driver argued that the truck driver should bear some responsibility because of his speed and failure to slow before the intersection.

The court rejected that argument saying that the evidence showed that the turn occurred so quickly and so close to the approaching truck that its driver did not have a reasonable opportunity to avoid the collision. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the result.

The comparison is useful. A through driver is not assigned part of the blame merely because someone can identify something they might have done differently. There must be evidence that the driver’s conduct fell below the required standard of care and contributed to the collision.

Speeding can affect fault, but only if it contributed to the crash

Speeding allegations are common after serious left-turn collisions. The turning driver may say that the other car “came out of nowhere” or was travelling so quickly that it appeared safe to turn when the manoeuvre began. The approaching driver could claim there was no meaningful opportunity to brake before the vehicle crossed the lane.

If a driver turns left when an approaching vehicle is already so close that the collision cannot reasonably be avoided, evidence that the through vehicle was travelling modestly above the posted limit may make little difference. That was essentially the problem with the argument in Mayers.

The analysis will changes if the excessive speed deprived the turning driver of time that would otherwise have been available to complete a reasonable turn, or where travelling at an appropriate speed would have allowed the through driver to brake or avoid the impact.

In a serious cases, speed can sometimes be examined through dashcam footage, vehicle event data, witnesses, physical evidence at the scene or accident reconstruction.

Yellow lights can make left-turn liability much harder to assess

Many left-turn collisions occur as a traffic signal changes from green to amber.

The turning driver has been waiting in the intersection. The light changes and they expect approaching traffic to stop. An oncoming driver believes there is not enough distance to stop safely and continues through.

Ontario law does not require every driver to stop the instant a signal changes to amber. Section 144(15) of the Highway Traffic Act requires an approaching driver to stop if they can do so safely. Otherwise, the driver may proceed with caution.

A driver waiting to turn left therefore cannot assume that every approaching vehicle will stop simply because the signal has changed.

Mayers arose from this kind of situation. An independent witness stated that the turning vehicle began its left turn when the light was amber and the Brink’s truck was already approaching the intersection. The court accepted evidence showing that the events unfolded too quickly for the truck driver to avoid the collision.

The result could easily be very different if the approaching vehicle was far enough from the intersection to stop safely, entered after the signal had changed to red, or accelerated in an attempt to get through.

A red-light violation can shift a large share of responsibility

Proven red-light violations change the liability analysis considerably. A driver with the right of way is generally entitled to proceed on the assumption that other motorists will obey their traffic signals. Even a driver travelling on green, however, must respond reasonably once it becomes apparent that another vehicle is entering their path and there is still an opportunity to avoid a collision.

The Ontario Court of Appeal addressed that principle in Sant v. Sekhon, 2014 ONCA 623.

In this case, which was not a left turn case, a pickup truck entered an intersection on a red light and was struck by a transport truck travelling through on green. The jury found the red-light driver 95% responsible but assigned 5% liability to the transport driver. The Court of Appeal upheld the result because there was evidence from which the jury could find that a reasonably careful driver should have recognized the developing danger and had an opportunity to respond.

The principle carries over to a disputed left-turn collision. Through drivers do not ordinarily have to anticipate that another motorist will unlawfully enter their path. Once the danger should reasonably be apparent, however, right of way does not excuse a failure to take reasonable steps to avoid a crash.

A stopped lane can hide an approaching vehicle

The collision pattern in Juneja is worth separating from a conventional single-lane left turn. One lane of oncoming traffic stops. A driver leaves a gap and waves the left-turning vehicle across. The turning vehicle moves through the gap and is struck by a car travelling in an adjacent lane. The stopped driver is only controlling their own vehicle. Their gesture does not establish that another lane is safe to cross.

In Juneja, the court noted that the left-turning driver had no evidence that she checked the remaining lane before proceeding. She did not see the through vehicle until the collision occurred. The through driver, meanwhile, was travelling within the range supported by the evidence and there was no basis to find that a different response would have prevented the crash.

Insurance fault is not the same as liability in a personal injury lawsuit

Ontario’s Fault Determination Rules are used by automobile insurers to assign fault for insurance purposes. Rule 12(5) deals specifically with the conventional situation where one automobile turns left into the path of an automobile travelling in the opposite direction. Where Rule 12(5) applies, and no other provision of the Regulation changes the result, the left-turning automobile is assigned 100% fault and the other automobile 0%.

That does not mean a court hearing a personal injury lawsuit must reach the same result. Tort claims are determined under negligence law. The court considers the conduct of both drivers and can divide responsibility where the evidence shows that both contributed to the collision.

Thiruchelvam is a clear example. The left-turning driver remained overwhelmingly responsible, but the through driver was still found 10% negligent.

Our separate guide explains in more detail how fault is determined in Ontario car accident claims and why insurer’s fault determinations do not dictate the outcome of a tort lawsuit.

Evidence often decides a disputed left-turn case

Left-turn crashes happen quickly, so it is not unusual for both drivers to leave the scene convinced that the other was responsible.

One driver remembers a green light while the other remembers an amber or red signal. The turning driver believes the approaching car was far away. The through driver says the turn happened almost immediately before impact.

Independent evidence can therefore become much more important than either driver’s recollection.

Dashcam footage may show the signal, the approach of the vehicles and when the left turn began. Nearby businesses, residences or transit vehicles may have recorded the intersection from another angle. Witnesses may be able to describe the traffic signal or the position of the vehicles before the collision.

Vehicle electronic data can sometimes assist with speed, braking and accelerator use. In higher-value cases where liability remains seriously contested, accident reconstruction evidence may help determine whether either driver had enough time and distance to avoid the crash.

Our article on dashcam footage after an Ontario car accident explains why preserving the complete original recording can be important rather than retaining only a short clip of the impact.

Shared fault can reduce the damages recovered

Ontario’s Negligence Act allows responsibility to be divided where the negligence of more than one person contributed to the loss.

If the injured driver is found to be partially responsible, the damages recoverable in the lawsuit can be reduced by that driver’s percentage of fault. A driver found 20% responsible, for example, would generally bear that percentage of the loss attributable to their own negligence.

That is why an allegation of speeding or failing to react can have consequences even if the left-turning driver remains primarily responsible.

Our guide to contributory negligence in Ontario examines that issue in greater detail.

Speak With an Ontario Car Accident Lawyer

Drivers who turn left across the path of an approaching vehicle face a strong case for liability in Ontario. Section 141(5) of the Highway Traffic Act reflects the significant obligation placed on the driver crossing opposing traffic.

At the same time, the result is not automatic and less clear than in rear end cases. Ontario cases show that speed, visibility, traffic signals, reaction time and what each driver could reasonably have seen can affect how responsibility is divided.

Foster Injury Law’s Ontario car accident lawyers represent people seriously injured in motor vehicle collisions throughout Ontario, including cases involving disputed intersection liability and contributory negligence.

Each collision depends on its own evidence and circumstances. This article provides general information about Ontario law and is not legal advice.

Lane Foster is an Ontario personal injury lawyer and the founder of Foster Injury Law. His practice focuses on serious motor vehicle accident litigation, catastrophic injury claims and insurance disputes across Ontario.