The Court of Appeal recently held that there is no duty on the part of a municipality to keep its roads safe for those who drive negligently. It also rejected an argument that there is a different standard for rural and urban drivers.
In Fordham v. Dutton-Dunwich, 2014 ONCA 891 (C.A.), the 16-year-old plaintiff was seriously injured when he came to a rural intersection, ignored a stop sign and drove through the intersection at 80 km/hr. He lost control on a curve and crashed into a concrete bridge abutting the road. The trial judge found the municipality 50% responsible for failing to post a checkboard sign warning of the change in the road's alignment. She held that it was local practice for rural drivers to go through stop signs and the municipality should have known that ordinary rural drivers do not always stop at stop signs.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the action. Laskin J.A. held that a municipality's duty of repair is limited to ensuring its roads can be driven safely by ordinary drivers exercising reasonable care. In addition, there cannot be one standard of reasonable driving for rural drivers and another for city drivers. There is one standard of reasonable driving and that standard requires drivers to obey traffic signs.
Fordham helps define a municipality's standard of care: although ordinary reasonable drivers are not perfect and may make mistakes, they are not negligent.
Wednesday, 7 January 2015
Municipality Has No Duty to Negligent Drivers
Artikel Terkait Municipality Has No Duty to Negligent Drivers :
Action Against Municipality for Failing to Repair Potholes DismissedJustice Leach has conducted a thorough review of the standard of care for a municipality as it relates to potholes in the decisio ...
Action Against Municipality Dismissed for Failing to Give NoticeIn August of last year, we reported on Argue v. Tay (Township), in which the action was dismissed for the failure to give no ...
Action Against Municipality Dismissed for Failure to Give Notice The new test for summary judgment as set out in the Supreme Court in Hryniakhas been applied to dismiss a claim against a M ...
Municipal Toboganning Case DismissedThe Municipality of Leamington recently successfully defended a case where the plaintiff alleged she was injured tobogganing.&nbs ...
Municipality Not Liable in Recreational Trail Case Recently the Ontario Courts found a municipality not liable, under section 4(1) of the Occupier’s Liability Act, for the plai ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment