She applied Harris v. Toronto Transit Commission et al (1967), 1967 CanLII 8 (SCC), 63 D.L.R. (2d) 450 (S.C.C.), and stated that the standard of care required of a public carrier is based on reasonable foreseeability in relation to the particular passenger. In her analysis, the driver ought to have taken special precautions in the operation of the bus, knowing of the frailty of the plaintiff. She found that it was reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff could be at risk of injury if particular attention was not paid to operating the vehicle in a more cautious manner “than usual”. There was no evidence that it would have been unreasonable for the driver to drive more slowly and cautiously knowing that the plaintiff had special needs.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.