Personal Injury Lawyer Toronto

Call For Your Free Case Evaluation 1-855-446-7765

Reverse Onus in Accidents Involving Pedestrians

Section 193 of the Highway Traffic Act, RSO 1990, c H.8 reverses the onus of proof between a pedestrian and the owner, driver, lessee or operator of a motor vehicle that is involved in a motor vehicle collision with him/her:

Onus of disproving negligence

193.  (1)  When loss or damage is sustained by any person by reason of a motor vehicle on a highway, the onus of proof that the loss or damage did not arise through the negligence or improper conduct of the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle is upon the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle. 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 3.

In other words, when a loss or damage occurs to a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle, it is the owner, driver, lessee, or operator of that motor vehicle that must prove that his/her negligence or improper conduct did not cause said losses or damages. 

The Court will still look at the facts of the case and reduce the damages awarded to the pedestrian if the pedestrian is found to be contributorily negligent with respect to the accident (for example, if the pedestrian was jaywalking).

At Himelfarb Proszanski, we are always on top of the law and ensure that our clients maximize their settlements; this is just part of the Himelfarb Proszanski Advantage™.

 

For assistance with a personal injury and/or insurance claim, please email David Himelfarb at dhimelfarb@himprolaw.com or call 1-855-446-7765, for a free case evaluation.

What Our Clients Say

I’d like to express my gratitude for you taking care of my car accident injury case. Your strong knowledge and experience solved this case smoothly. I don’t know what I would have done without your effort. Thank You, Best Wishes.

Lian Liu, Toronto, ON.