Taxi Drivers Owe no Duty of Care to Adult Intoxicated Passengers

Taxi Drivers Owe no Duty of Care to Adult Intoxicated Passengers

In a recent case of the Superior Court of Justice, Stewart v. The Corporation of the Township of Douro-Dummer, 2018, ONSC 4009, Justice Ricchetti grappled with the issue of what duty of care a taxi driver owes to an intoxicated passenger.  The Court concluded that there is no positive duty of care on a taxi driver to ensure that intoxicated adult passengers are or remain buckled.

 

Background

This case involved a motor vehicle accident which occurred on November 28, 2010.  Four men, one of whom was the plaintiff, had been to a stag and doe party and had consumed significant amounts of alcohol. Thereafter, they called a cab to drive them to their respective destinations.  The plaintiff was a front seat passenger.  As a result of a collision in which the cab was t-boned by another vehicle, the plaintiff suffered serious injuries.

Several actions were commenced in connection to this accident.  At the time of trial the parties had entered into a written agreement, whereby they agreed that the taxi driver did not cause or contribute to the accident; the plaintiff was not wearing the seatbelt at the time of the accident; and that the injuries of the plaintiff were more serious than they would have been had he been wearing the seatbelt at the time of the accident.

The only issue to be determined was whether the taxi driver was liable for the failure of the plaintiff to wear the seatbelt.  The issue impacted the insurer, which provided uninsured and underinsured insurance to the plaintiff.

 

Duty of Care

In the decision Justice Ricchetti discusses section 106 of the Highway Traffic Act according to which any person at least 16 years of age and a passenger in a vehicle shall wear a seatbelt.  All parties, except the insurer, agreed that there was no Canadian authority on the issue of the duty of care.  By contrast, the insurer submitted that Galaske v. O’Donnell, [1994] 1 SCR 670 has established that a driver owes a duty to vulnerable passengers to ensure that passengers wore their seat belts.  Justice Ricchetti distinguished this case from the case at bar as it did not involve a taxi driver or a person over 16 years of age.  Other cases the insurer relied upon were distinguished from this case and it was concluded that a duty of care owed by a taxi driver to a visibly intoxicated adult person had not been recognized by Canadian courts before.

Cases from other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Australia are also discussed.

Having concluded that there are no Canadian authorities in support of a positive duty on the taxi driver and upon examining foreign jurisdictions experience to inform the analysis in this case, the Court recognized the onus on the insurer to establish that a prima facie duty of care exists in this case.  Then, the onus shifts to the taxi driver to establish that there are residual policy reasons why such duty should not be recognized.

Upon careful analysis of these issues, Justice Riccheti concluded that the insurer failed to establish a prima facie duty of care owed by the taxi driver to the intoxicated passenger.  The analysis then continues that even if the Court was wrong on the issue of the duty, residual policy considerations would negate such duty.

 

Policy Considerations

The policy considerations taken into account were the following:

 

  • The law already imposes a duty on an adult passenger to buckle in any vehicle. Imposing a duty on the taxi driver would run against the spirit of what the legislation imposes.
  • There are no valid societal reasons to transfer the duty of care from the intoxicated person to the taxi driver. Intoxication is self-induced and there are no basis to transfer such duty other than the vulnerability of the intoxicated person.  Becoming intoxicated is a choice made by the adult and no valid reason is seen to transfer one’s protection of safety to the taxi driver.  No benefit to the society is seen from such transfer either.
  • The availability of a remedy for the injured party. Such remedy is against the at-fault parties.  The remedy is also supplemented by the law recognising remedies when the negligent motorist is uninsured.
  • The taxi driver committed no moral wrong. By leaving the choice to the adult to buckle or remain buckled no wrongdoing is committed by the taxi driver.  The taxi driver has no financial incentive or disincentive related to whether the adult passenger wears a seat belt.
  • Imposition of a duty of care on the taxi driver would make its carrying out unmanageable. Placing such a duty would require the taxi driver to determine whether the adult passengers are intoxicated.  Even if a passenger is “vulnerable” due to mental or physical disability, or use of drugs and like, carrying out such duty/responsibility would be difficult for the taxi driver.
  • Recognition of a duty of care on the taxi driver could impact the safe use of alternate ways home from intoxicated persons.
  • No Duty in other Jurisdictions is Recognized. The Court concludes that no foreign authorities favors a societal interest to impose a duty of care on drivers towards adult passengers, including intoxicated adult passengers.

Insights & Commentary

Now is the Winter of Our Discontent: ONCA Settles How Long Winter Contractors Should Take to Apply Salt, Reiterates Duty of Care Separate from Contractual Duties - photo
  • Commentaries

Now is the Winter of Our Discontent: ONCA Settles How Long Winter Contractors Should Take to Apply Salt, Reiterates Duty of Care Separate from Contractual Duties

Now is the Winter of Our Discontent:[1] ONCA Settles How Long Winter Contractors Should Take to Apply Salt, Reiterates Duty of Care Separate from Contractual Duties By: Michael A. Valdez Introduction In the recent decision of Musa v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 255,[2] the Ontario Court of Appeal offers clear guidance as to how long a … Continued

The Question of Coverage for Innocent Passengers in Stolen Vehicles: A Review of the 2023 Ontario Court of Appeal Decision in Burnham v Co-operators General Insurance Company - photo
  • Commentaries

The Question of Coverage for Innocent Passengers in Stolen Vehicles: A Review of the 2023 Ontario Court of Appeal Decision in Burnham v Co-operators General Insurance Company

By Thomas Russell Background On August 25, 2014, Joshua Burnham was asleep in the back of a stolen pickup truck when it was involved in a motor vehicle accident, tragically killing the driver and front-seated passenger of the vehicle.[1] Arising out of this horrible situation was the question of who should cover the damages that … Continued

Causation and Foreseeability in Case v Pattison: Negligent Inspections Conducted by an Intervening Party do not Negate the Liability of a Preceding Tortfeasor - photo
  • Commentaries

Causation and Foreseeability in Case v Pattison: Negligent Inspections Conducted by an Intervening Party do not Negate the Liability of a Preceding Tortfeasor

By: Zachary Sherman Introduction In the May 2023 decision of Case v. Pattison,[1] the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ the Court”) provided clarification on the foreseeability and causation analysis to be applied where an intervening party negligently performs their duty to inspect the work of a preceding tortfeasor. In conducting their analysis, the Court concluded … Continued

From Settlement to Stay: The Ontario Court of Appeal Affirms the Importance of Prompt Disclosure of Settlement Information to Related Parties - photo
  • Commentaries

From Settlement to Stay: The Ontario Court of Appeal Affirms the Importance of Prompt Disclosure of Settlement Information to Related Parties

In its recent decision, Skymark Finance Corporation v Ontario, 2023 ONCA 234[1], the Ontario Court of Appeal took the opportunity to comment on the importance of immediate disclosure of settlement minutes to other parties in an action and to clarify the meaning of the phrase “to change the entirety of the litigation landscape”. The Immediate … Continued

by

When are Insurers Required to Provide Medical Reasons for the Denial of Statutory Accident Benefits? - photo
  • Commentaries

When are Insurers Required to Provide Medical Reasons for the Denial of Statutory Accident Benefits?

An insurer may discontinue an insured’s entitlement to benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule[1] (“the SABS”) pursuant to any of the specified grounds enumerated under section 37(2). If the insurer determines that the insured is ineligible for benefits on the basis of any of these grounds, section 37(4) requires the insurer to provide notice, … Continued

by

Vitriol or Value? ONCA Provides Direction on Anti-SLAPP Analysis - photo
  • Commentaries

Vitriol or Value? ONCA Provides Direction on Anti-SLAPP Analysis

Introduction In Thorman v. McGraw,[1] the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified section 137.1(4)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act and further narrowed the class of public expression deemed worthy of protection under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation. Background In December 2013, the respondent entered into an agreement with the appellants to renovate her bathroom. The respondent was … Continued

by

All News