An Ontario Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court decision which ruled a professional commercial driver is partly liable for a collision caused by an intoxicated driver of another vehicle.<\/p>\n
The case serves as a warning to commercial operators that professional drivers appear to be held to a much higher legal standard by the courts than other drivers. Moreover, virtually any accident a commercial driver is involved in carries a degree of liability risk, regardless of which party is at fault.<\/p>\n
The incident occurred in 2008 when an individual was driving himself and three passengers, after having spent the evening at various pubs. The intoxicated passenger car driver went through a red light at an intersection and collided with an \u2018offline\u2019 City of Ottawa OC Transpo bus, which had entered the intersection on a green light. The crash resulted in three fatalities and severe injuries for a fourth individual.<\/p>\n
Although the passenger car driver\u2019s estate admitted liability for the accident and the parties eventually agreed on the respondents\u2019 damages, a trial judge also found the bus driver and the City of Ottawa to be 20% liable for damages because, in her opinion, he did not drive \u2018defensively\u2019 enough.<\/p>\n
The judge expressly held the bus driver, as a professional trained operator, was obliged to \u201cobserve the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver in like circumstances.\u201d<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the judge reasoned:<\/p>\n
[otaTextBox padding=\u00a0\u00bb20″]<\/p>\n
\u00ab\u00a0Despite having the statutory right-of-way, a driver \u2026 is required to yield the right-of-way where, exercising proper care, circumstances dictate he ought not to exercise the statutory right-of-way.\u00a0 The statutory right-of-way ought not to be exercised in circumstances where:<\/p>\n
[\/otaTextBox]<\/p>\n
The bus driver and the City appealed the ruling, arguing the trial judge erred in her decision, specifically taking issue with the elevated standard she placed on the bus driver.<\/p>\n
Instead, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the ruling, stating that \u201cthe general standard of care of a professional \u2026 is a question of law, but the content of the standard of care in a particular case is a question of fact\u201d \u2026 In other words, Mr. Richer\u2019s conduct may be judged through the lens of the \u201creasonable bus driver in like circumstances\u201d.<\/p>\n
In essence, the Appeals Court agreed, as a professional, the bus driver could have given up the right-of-way to avoid possible collision with other vehicles; as well as manoeuvre at a distance and in such a way so as not to preclude safe stopping or averting of a collision.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe see no error in the trial judge\u2019s consideration of (the bus driver\u2019s) status as an experienced bus driver or in her treatment of this fact as relevant to the determination of the applicable standard of care to which (he) was bound at the time of the accident.\u00a0 Nor do we accept the appellants\u2019 contention that the trial judge erred by relying on the (bus driver\u2019s) status as a professional driver to improperly impose an inappropriate, elevated standard of care.\u201d<\/p>\n