The Standard of Care in Pedestrian Cases

Annapolis County District School Board v. Marshall, 2012 SCC 27

A four year old boy was injured in an automobile accident when he ran out into the road in front of a school bus. A jury found there was no negligence on the part of the defendant. The trial judge instructed the jury there could be no contributory negligence given the boy’s age but instructed them on s. 125(3) of the Nova Scotia Motor Vehicles Act, which provides a duty on pedestrians to yield the right of way to vehicles when crossing outside of a crosswalk. The judge’s charge included instructions that the standard of care owed to children on a highway is the same as to adults, but there may be circumstances that should put motorists on guard that a child could dart out onto the road. The Court of Appeal reversed the jury’s decision on the basis that the trial judge erred in referring to the right of way provisions. The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court, which allowed the appeal.

The Supreme Court held the statutory provision was relevant to the consideration of whether the driver was negligent. Justice Deschamps held:

[7] I agree with the appellant that the Court of Appeal failed to appreciate the dual function of statutory right-of-way provisions. Not only do such provisions inform the assessment of whether a pedestrian was contributorily negligent by failing to yield a right of way, they can also help determine whether a driver breached the applicable standard of care in the circumstances. In this case, even though Johnathan’s contributory negligence had been ruled out as a matter of law, the statutory right-of-way provisions continued to inform the standard of care that Mr. Feener owed to all pedestrians. The jury needed to be told that, absent special circumstances, where the driver has the right of way, he or she can reasonably proceed on the assumption that others will follow the rules of the road and yield the right of way to drivers.

The jury’s dismissal of the action was upheld.

Many provinces have similar provisions to the Nova Scotia Act. The Supreme Court’s decision helps to inform the standard of care for motorists in “darting” cases involving children.

Gross Negligence

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has upheld a decision which found that the City of Mississauga’s response to a winter storm event was reasonable, Billings v. Mississauga (City), 2011 ONCA 247, [2011] O.J. No. 1449 (C.A.).

The plaintiff, Douglas Billings, claimed injuries suffered in a slip and fall accident on a City sidewalk following a major snow and ice storm.

The sidewalk in question had not been cleared of snow and ice within 36 hours after the winter storm.  The City’s snow removal policy required that snow and ice be removed from sidewalks within 36 hours and the City had failed to meet that target. Nevertheless, the trial judge found that the storm had been an extraordinary event. The trial judge carefully reviewed the City’s systems, personnel and policies for dealing with snow storms and concluded that the City’s response to the storm was "completely reasonable."  The City’s response to the storm did not amount to “gross negligence”, which is the standard mandated by statute.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge’s conclusion.

This case should assist municipalities in defending claims of personal injury caused by snow or ice on a municipal sidewalk. It is interesting that the City was found to have acted reasonably even though it did not meet its objective of clearing snow and ice from sidewalks within 36 hours after a storm event.

Amendments to MMS

More commentary on the recent amendments to the MMS, by Jennifer Stirton.

2. Application of MMS Not Restricted to Motor Vehicles

The MMS previously provided that they applied only in respect of motor vehicles using highways. This provision has been repealed, which suggests that the MMS now apply to pedestrians and bicycles using highways. This may be a response to recent case law which held that where roads are kept in a reasonable state of repair for vehicular traffic, which can include MMS compliance, a municipality may not be liable to pedestrians injured while walking on the road surface. Holmes v. Kingston (City), [2009] O.J. No. 1838 (S.C.J.).

Graham v. Toronto, [2009] O.J. No. 4633

This is a decision of A. Sosna J. of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

I think this is an interesting decision because the judge dismissed the claim against the City of Toronto even though the plaintiff had tripped and fallen over a "metal frame" left lying in the middle of the sidewalk. The claim was dismissed because the City had good record keeping which showed that it had inspected the highway (including the sidewalk) just 8 hours before the trip and fall. Therefore the City had met the standard of care required of it.

Facts: A claimant tripped and fell after stepping into the interior of a metal frame lying on the sidewalk. Apparently he saw the metal frame, stepped into it and while exiting, caught his left foot on the frame. As a result, he lost his balance and fell, suffering two broken bones in his left arm. A metal rod had to be inserted into his arm.

The Municipal Act, 2001, s. 44, governs liability. It provides that a municipality is liable for all damages sustained for failing to keep highways (which includes sidewalks) in a state of repair that is reasonable in the circumstances. It also includes a defence that a municipality is not liable if it did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to have known about the state or repair of the highway.

The City provided evidence that an inspection of the highway, including the sidewalk, had taken place approximately eight hours before the trip and fall. The City employee who conducted the inspection says that he would have immediately removed the metal frame had it been noticed. Further, there was no record of any complaint or notice given to the City about the metal frame on the sidewalk.

The trial judge held that it is a question of fact in each case whether a condition of non‑repair or hazard exists and if so, whether the municipal authorities’ response is reasonable, timely and properly executed. The judge held that the inspector had not observed the rectangular metal frame lying on the sidewalk and the accuracy and reliability of his observations were not undermined or negated during cross-examination. Therefore, despite the “tragic and unfortunate injuries to the plaintiff”, the defendant met its evidentiary burden of establishing that it had met the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001, and as such should not be held to a standard of perfection.

The trial judge then dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

The trial judge went on to assess damages at $50,000.00 and interestingly would have assessed contributory negligence at 50%.

Sidewalk Non-Repair

A recent decision of Justice Matheson of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Hamilton found that a depression in a sidewalk of 5/8 of an inch does not constitute a state of non-repair, Anderson v. Hamilton, [2009] O.J. No. 4358.

The plaintiff had tripped over a small depression in the sidewalk and fell, breaking her wrist. The court confirmed that each case of non-repair of sidewalks is governed by its own factual basis and the affirmed the traditional formulations that a Municipality is "not an insurer" of anyone walking on its streets and that a Municipality does not have to keep its sidewalk as "smooth as a billiard table".

Further, the court held that the City of Hamilton did have a regular inspection routine for its sidewalks. The City inspects its sidewalks in Hamilton once a year. The court held that this was more inspection than some courts had called for, noting that in some cases inspections every three years have been acceptable. The City of Hamilton therefore was held to have satisfied the duty placed on it by having regular inspections.

Walking into a parked auto is not being "struck" or "hit" by it

In Lewis v. Economical Insurance Group, [2009] O.J. No. 2853 (S.C.J.), Eberhard J. held that there is no coverage for walking into a parked car under the uninsured provisions of the Standard Automobile Policy (s. 265 Insurance Act) or under the Family Protection endorsement (OPCF 44R).

It seems to make sense.

The plaintiff suffered injuries when she struck her head on a steel pole that was protruding from a vehicle.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment on the basis that (i) the plaintiff had failed to establish an unidentified vehicle had been involved or could not have been ascertained and (ii) that there is no coverage in any event under the uninsured provisions policy or under OPCF 44R. The insurer won the motion on the latter issue.

The wording of the OPCF 44R endorsement is that the plaintiff is only covered if the plaintiff is not "an occupant of an automobile who is struck by an automobile".

The wording of the policy is that the plaintiff is only covered "when not in an automobile ... if hit by an unidentified or uninsured automobile" (policy).

The Court held that the meaning of hit or struck is not ambiguous: the automobile did not hit or strike the plaintiff pedestrian. The pedestrian walked into the automobile.

Here are paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Court's endorsement:

"This is quite unlike the circumstance of being hit/struck by something hit by an automobile or falling out of a moving vehicle as it is the movement of the vehicle that applies the force that gives rise to the hit/strike."

"It is also unlike the interpretation of "hit/struck" where a moving automobile created a peril which caused the insured to take evasive action which resulted in his injury. There, the visual impact of the automobile caused the injury. In the present case the Plaintiff did not see the pole and walked into it. Nothing about the automobile impacted upon the situation."