In what circumstances can a bus driver be held responsible for the actions of his passengers?

In The “Bernina” Case, Lord Watson, at p. 75 (57 L.J. Adm.) said: I am of opinion that there is no relation constituted between the driver of an omnibus and its ordinary passengers which can justify the inference that they are identified, to any extent whatever, with his negligence. He is the servant of the owner, not their servant; he does not look to them for orders, and they have no right to interfere with his conduct of the vehicle, except, perhaps, the right of remonstrance when he is doing, or threatens to do, something that is wrong, and inconsistent with their safety. Practically they have no greater measure of control over his actions than the passenger in a railway train has over the conduct of the engine-driver. I am, therefore, unable to assent to the principle upon which the case of Thorogood v. Bryan, 8 C.B. 115, 18 L.J.C.P. 336, rests. In my opinion, an ordinary passenger by an omnibus or by a ship is not affected, either in a question with contributory wrongdoers or with innocent third parties, by the negligence, in one case, of the driver, and, in the other, of the master and crew by whom the ship is navigated, unless he actually assumes control over their actions, and thereby occasions mischief. In that case he must, of course, be responsible for the consequences of his interference.

If the passenger has “no right to interfere” and “practically no control,” there does not seem to be any legal obligation on his part to keep a look-out. No man is bound either for the establishment of his own claims or to avoid claims of third persons against him to use special precaution against merely possible want of care or skill on the part of other persons who are not his servants or under his authority or control [Pollock, Law of Torts, 11th ed., 481; Daniel v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. (1871) L.R. 5 H.L. 45, 40 L.J.CP. 121.]