During my years in practice, I saw more than a few clients who came through the door with injuries suffered on public transit. The stories were similar: someone boards a TTC bus or subway, doesn’t manage to sit down or grab a handhold before the vehicle pulls away, and a sudden start sends them tumbling.  These weren’t unusual cases. Many people fall when buses lurch or trains accelerate abruptly. But I quickly learned how difficult such claims could be to advance against the transit authority.

I mediated a case recently, where an elderly lady boarded a public bus and testified in her examination for discovery that the driver closed the door and pulled away from the curb before she had a chance to grab hold of a bar to secure herself. However, a video camera from within the bus captured her standing without securing herself for a full 17 seconds before the bus pulled away from the curb.

If you act on passenger injury claims against public transit, you already know the drill: carriers owe a high duty of care, but they’re not insurers. “The bus moved and I fell” won’t cut it. Courts consistently asked the same blunt questions. Was the operator actually negligent in the circumstances? And did the passenger do their part—hold on, watch their step, follow obvious safety cues?

I took a dive into the statutes and some instructive cases over the last couple of decades to see if anything has changed.

The Legal Framework in Ontario

Transit operators in Ontario are treated as common carriers, owing passengers a heightened duty of reasonable care. This duty flows from the common law, where courts have recognized that carriers of the public for hire must exercise diligence, prudence, and skill in safeguarding their passengers. Importantly, this is not absolute liability. Transit providers are not insurers of passenger safety, but the obligation does go beyond that owed by the average driver on the road.

The Negligence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.1^[1]provides the statutory foundation for how fault is shared when accidents occur. Section 1 requires that where damage has been caused by fault of two or more persons, liability is apportioned according to the degree of fault. Section 3 authorizes courts to reduce or bar damages where the injured party is also at fault. This statute is central to transit fall claims: even if a bus driver starts suddenly, damages may be reduced if the passenger failed to secure themselves. Ontario courts frequently invoke contributory negligence in this context.

The Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2^[2], section 3(1), imposes on occupiers a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that persons entering on the premises are reasonably safe. While directed at land and buildings, Ontario courts have drawn on its reasoning when discussing public transit: carriers must ensure their vehicles are reasonably safe for passengers. Though not directly applied in public transit sudden-start cases, this statute reinforces the principle that transit operators owe passengers a positive duty to reduce foreseeable risks.

The Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8^[3] provides specific standards for driver conduct. Section 128(1) requires vehicles to be driven at a speed reasonable and prudent under the conditions. Section 130 prohibits careless driving, defined as operating a vehicle without due care and attention or reasonable consideration for others. These provisions have informed judicial reasoning in TTC cases, as courts have consistently applied them as part of the negligence analysis.

Key Cases Demonstrating Contributory Negligence

When a transit passenger is injured, claimants often lean on the idea that transit providers are insurers of absolute safety. But recurring court rulings say otherwise: common carriers face heightened duty, for sure. But responsibility still lies partly with passengers who fail to care for their own safety.

In Seyom v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2018 ONSC 6848^[4], the plaintiff alleged she was injured when a TTC bus pulled away before she had a chance to sit down. The evidence showed, however, that the bus departed only after the doors had closed, with the plaintiff still standing among other passengers. The court found no negligence on the part of the driver, emphasizing that the presence of standing passengers is a normal and foreseeable feature of public transit and that the ordinary motion of a bus starting from a stop does not, on its own, amount to negligent operation. The case reaffirmed the principle that transit operators owe a high duty of care, but that duty does not extend to insulating passengers from the ordinary movements inherent in public transportation.

In Caplan v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2017 CanLII 67294 (ON SCSM)^[5], the plaintiff sought damages after being injured when a subway door closed on them. At trial, the Small Claims Court dismissed the action, holding that the plaintiff had not provided any concrete evidence of negligence—such as proof of operator error, mechanical malfunction, or a defect in the transit system. The court stressed that simply showing an injury occurred was not enough. Without particulars demonstrating a specific breach of duty, liability could not be established. The decision underscores that in transit injury claims, plaintiffs must point to identifiable acts or omissions rather than relying on the mere fact of an accident.

In Isaacs v. Coast Mountain Bus Co. Ltd., 2014 BCSC 2212^[6], the plaintiff was injured while stepping off a bus that had stopped some distance from the curb, creating a larger-than-usual gap to the ground. The court examined two central questions: whether the bus operator had fulfilled their duty by stopping in a reasonably safe location, and whether the plaintiff had exercised adequate care in disembarking. Applying a comparative fault framework, the court concluded that both parties bore responsibility—the operator for failing to minimize the hazard created by the stop placement, and the passenger for not taking greater care in alighting. The ruling illustrates how contributory negligence principles are used to apportion liability where both operator conduct and passenger self-care factor into the accident.

In Falconer v. BC Transit Corporation, 2013 BCSC 715^[7], the court addressed a passenger injury by outlining key factors for contributory negligence, including foreseeability, the nature of each party’s conduct, and their opportunity to avoid harm. The plaintiff, while attempting to exit through the rear doors of the bus, slipped and fell, thereby causing an injury to his right ankle. The ruling showed how liability in transit cases is apportioned, not absolute, with blame divided according to each party’s role in the incident.

In Leon v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2014 ONSC 1600^[8], the court considered the loss of transit CCTV footage in a passenger injury claim. It held that accidental loss of evidence through routine procedures does not automatically warrant sanctions, but deliberate destruction aimed at influencing litigation may. The case highlights the importance of preserving video and other records early, as they are often crucial in transit liability disputes.

Recurring Judicial Themes

Ontario courts have developed consistent themes in transit injury cases. They have made clear that the ordinary motion of a bus or subway—such as routine stops, starts, or door operation—does not, on its own, amount to negligence. (Seyom v. TTC; Caplan v. TTC). Passengers are also expected to take reasonable steps for their own safety by holding handrails, watching their footing, and asking for help when needed.

Where both operator conduct and passenger behavior contribute to an accident, fault is apportioned between them, as shown in cases like Isaacs v. Coast Mountain Bus Co. and Falconer v. BC Transit Corp.. Courts further emphasize that claims must be supported by specifics. Vague assertions that a door closed or a bus jerked will not suffice without evidence of a clear breach of duty (Caplan).

Finally, preserving evidence early is critical, particularly transit video, since the loss of footage—though not always sanctionable—can seriously weaken a claim (Leon v. TTC).

Practical pleading and proof tips (so you’re not spinning your wheels)

When pursuing a transit injury claim, success often depends on how well the pleadings and evidence are framed from the outset.

The first priority is to secure the facts quickly by sending a preservation letter for CCTV footage, operator logs, incident reports, CAD/AVL data, and maintenance records. If the video is already gone, it becomes essential to document the timeline carefully and be prepared to address spoliation directly, as highlighted in Leon v. TTC.

Equally important is particularizing the alleged breach. It is not enough to plead a “sudden stop.” The claim must set out how and why the operator’s actions were negligent—for example, accelerating into a stop at excessive speed, failing to wait for a vulnerable passenger, stopping far from the curb, or opening doors at an unsafe angle. The reasoning in Isaacs v. Coast Mountain Bus Co. shows how such details can be critical to a successful argument.

Finally, counsel must anticipate contributory negligence. If the passenger failed to hold onto a pole, rushed off the bus, or carried an awkward load without seeking assistance, that conduct must be confronted head-on. The analysis in Falconer v. BC Transit Corp. provides a useful framework for showing how, despite such shortcomings, the operator may still have had the better opportunity to prevent harm.

Bottom Line

Transit injury claims demand more than proof of a fall or an injury. Courts consistently hold that the ordinary movements of buses and subways do not amount to negligence, and passengers are expected to take reasonable steps for their own safety. Where accidents occur, liability is often shared, with contributory negligence playing a central role. To succeed, claims must be grounded in specifics—identifiable operator errors, policy breaches, or unsafe stop practices—and supported by preserved evidence, particularly video. In short, the winning cases are those built on clear facts, precise pleadings, and an early strategy to address both negligence and passenger fault.