What is sufficient to prove negligence in a motor vehicle accident?

Even if the foregoing is not sufficient, other than the positioning of the car just prior to the accident and the general description of the movement of the plaintiff, we know very little about precisely what each of the parties did or didn’t do immediately prior to the accident. We also don’t know the visibility possible prior to the truck obscuring the sight of the driver and immediately after the obstruction is cleared and prior to the accident. If the onus were on the plaintiff to prove negligence, given our lack of knowledge of particulars the plaintiff might very well fail. However, s. 153(1) of the Act places the onus of proof upon the defendant. The effect of this onus is well elaborated in Melnychuk v. Moore, supra (para. 5). The missing information combined with the proximity of a school, the time of day and the blocked vision leads me to conclude the statutory onus has not been satisfied.