Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Liability centered on a sudden braking event involving a public transit bus and an unidentified sedan.

• Plaintiffs were passengers injured during the incident and alleged negligence.

• The bus was owned by TransLink and operated by a Coast Mountain Bus Company driver.

• The court found both the sedan and bus drivers negligent but placed greater fault on the sedan.

• Section 24 of B.C.’s Insurance (Vehicle) Act was satisfied, allowing recovery against unidentified driver.

• No costs were awarded despite a ruling in the plaintiffs’ favour.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and incident
On May 14, 2018, a sudden braking incident occurred involving a public transit bus in British Columbia. The bus, an articulated vehicle owned by South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (TransLink) and operated by Coast Mountain Bus Company Ltd., was traveling through Vancouver when the driver abruptly braked in response to the erratic movement of an unidentified white sedan. The plaintiffs, Rosya Roshini Lata and Joy Domingo, were passengers on the bus at the time and claimed to have suffered injuries due to the abrupt stop.

The defendants included the bus driver, Ted Walter Pierson, the entities responsible for the bus operation (TransLink and Coast Mountain), the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), and unnamed parties identified as John and/or Jane Doe. Third-party claims were brought against Joseph Donald Foster and the City of Vancouver.

Legal issues and analysis
The key legal issue was whether negligence could be attributed to the driver of the bus, the unknown sedan driver, or both, and whether the plaintiffs could recover damages under section 24 of B.C.’s Insurance (Vehicle) Act, which permits claims where an unidentified vehicle is involved.

The court considered the standard of care expected from a professional bus driver and whether it was breached in this case. It also evaluated the role of the unidentified sedan driver, whose conduct caused the bus driver to take evasive action. Although contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs was initially raised, it was not argued at trial and was therefore dismissed by the court.

Court’s decision
The court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, finding that the conditions under section 24 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act were met, thus allowing claims against the unidentified driver. It apportioned liability at 70% to the sedan driver (the "sedan defendants") and 30% to the bus driver and affiliated entities (the "bus defendants").

The court dismissed all arguments regarding contributory negligence by the plaintiffs and concluded that both drivers shared fault, with a larger share attributed to the unknown sedan for creating the hazardous conditions. No costs were awarded in the case.