Question

In Kauffman v. Toronto Transit Commission, the plaintiff fell down an escalator after a fully-grown man and two youths, whose combined weight was more than 450 pounds, had tumbled into her.

What if the plaintiff had fallen down the escalator after a small child (rather than the two youths and the fully-grown man) had tumbled into her? Would this have changed the court's analysis of whether the defendant was liable in negligence? If so, how? 8 marks

Answer 1

Ans.

The immediate reason for the fall continued by the litigant, as is clarified by the proof, was the illegitimate and horribly careless lead of two youngsters named Peters and Auchincloss who were remaining in front of the appealing party and who started to wrestle on the elevator while it was climbing. In grappling with one another they clearly fell in reverse against a third youngster depicted by the appealing party as a huge man, and he thusly against and upon the litigant. From the insufficient portrayal in the proof of these three men whose joined weight was out of nowhere and without notice anticipated against the appealing party, it might appropriately be construed that their weight totaled at least 450 lbs.
While trying to connect with the risk of the travel commission for the illegitimate demonstrations of these two men, one of the includes of carelessness affirmed in the announcement of guarantee was that the respondent had neglected to give sufficient oversight of its travelers to forestall them jarring each other when on the elevator. It was clearly in regard of this head of carelessness that the second answer of the jury was made.
While the tons of people utilize all due, appropriate and sensible consideration and the consideration required is of an extremely serious extent such transporters are not back up plans of the security of the people whom they convey. The law is accurately presented that they don't warrant the adequacy or adequacy of their vehicles, yet their endeavor is to take all due consideration and to convey securely to the extent sensible consideration and planning can achieve that end.
We belive that if there was child instead of the fully grown man the analysis of the court will not have changed. In this jury and in the appeal court both were focused on that the injury was accident and respondent were not liable also the analysis of the jury and court were around the type of the railing , and issue that the escalator did not stop after the accident.