The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing his claim for damages arising from an incident where he came into contact with a transit bus.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the bus driver was not negligent.
The court held that the trial judge did not err by failing to explicitly reference the reverse onus provision in s. 193(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, as the evidence of the accident reconstruction expert supported the finding that the appellant walked or ran into the side of the bus and the driver could not have prevented the accident.
The trial judge's alternative assessment of damages was also upheld.
