Is there nothing reasonably prudent driver could have done to avoid the collision between a motorcyclist and a pedestrian?

I agree with the position taken by the parties that should the court accept either theory of liability, on the evidence presented, there was nothing a reasonably prudent driver could have done to avoid the other. In reaching this conclusion, I have considered the principle as stated by Ritchie J. in Adams v. Dias 1968 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1968] S.C.R. 931 at 936: It is true that a driver is in no way relieved from the liability which flows from a failure to take reasonable care simply because another user of the highway is driving in such a fashion as to violate the law, but in my opinion, no motorist is required to anticipate, and therefore keep on the look-out for, such an unusual and unexpected violation as was manifested by the appellant’s course of conduct in the present case.