In Mott v Welch, the Plaintiff had been standing and holding onto the floor to roof stanchion, when she decided to sit down. At the moment she decided to do so, and before she became seated again, the bus accelerated from a stop sign, and she fell to the floor, injuring herself. The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.
 Ms. Mott testified that she did not speak to the driver at the time of the incident because she thought she was not approachable. She testified that she formed that opinion by watching Ms. Welch interact with other passengers. The interaction which Ms. Mott described occurred after the incident. There is no reason why, in the event Ms. Mott thought that Ms. Welch had operated the bus in an irresponsible manner, she could not or would not have mentioned it immediately upon sustaining the injury of which she complains.
 Ms. Welch is an experienced driver who has worked with the Transit Authority for approximately 20 years. No evidence of her driving record, whether good or bad, was adduced. There is insufficient evidence from which I am able to assess traffic conditions or driving conditions generally, or from which to conclude that the motion of the bus at the time of the mishap was out of the ordinary.
 Ms. Mott testified that she was a frequent bus rider. She readily acknowledged that she was aware that buses were subject to motion against which a standing rider had to take reasonable precautions.
 The evidence indicates, and I find, that the bus was travelling on a four-lane road with two lanes in each direction of travel. The centre lane in the direction of travel was reserved for through traffic. The curb lane was available for parking. There is no evidence that there were restrictions against parking at the time that this mishap occurred. While neither Ms. Welch nor Ms. Mott had a specific recollection of traffic conditions at the stop where the mishap occurred, I am prepared to infer and find as a fact that vehicles were parked in the curb lane ahead of the bus stop zone. That is the reasonable inference given that the bus swayed upon, or soon after, leaving the stop. The swaying motion is consistent with the movement of the bus from the curb lane to the centre through lane.
 Ms. Mott testified to her recollection that the bus suddenly accelerated. I find that contact with the left armrest of the seat is inconsistent with acceleration which would have tended to cause Ms. Mott to move to the rear of the bus toward the right-hand armrest. The fact Ms. Mott hit the left armrest is more consistent with deceleration of the bus which caused her body to move from the centre of the seat where she intended to sit, to a position over the left side armrest.
 On the evidence that has been adduced, I conclude and find as a fact that the sole cause of the accident was Ms. Mott’s omission to take precautions to ensure her own safety on a moving bus. She omitted to hold the stanchion that was readily available to her as she sat down. I am not persuaded on a balance of probabilities that the bus was operated in any manner which could be classified as negligent.