27 Aug Slip and Fall in a Grocery Store
In the case of Harrison v. Loblaws, Inc. (Real Canadian Superstore), 2018 BCSC 575, the Plaintiff sought damages for injuries suffered in an accident that took place at a Real Canadian Superstore. The Plaintiff slipped on a large pool of clear liquid laundry detergent, hit her forehead on the end cap of an aisle, and subsequently fell backwards and hit the back of her head on the floor.
Superstore admitted that it was an occupier and as such, owed the Plaintiff a duty of care. The governing legislation that imposes a duty of care is s. 3(1) and (2) of the Occupiers Liability Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 337 (“OLA”). That section provides:
3 (1) An occupier of premises owes a duty to take that care that in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that a person, and the person’s property, on the premises, and property on the premises of a person, whether or not that person personally enters on the premises, will be reasonably safe in using the premises.
(2) The duty of care referred to in subsection (1) applies in relation to the
(a) condition of the premises,
(b) activities on the premises, or
(c) conduct of third parties on the premises.
Where a plaintiff has established a prima facie breach of the statute, section 47 of the OLA allows an occupier to rebut this evidence by showing that:
(a) It had a reasonable system of inspection and maintenance in place; and
(b) It was following the system at the time of the accident.
In applying the facts of this case to these legal principles, it was clear that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case. The fact that she slipped on a large pool of liquid laundry detergent in Superstore and sustained a head injury as a result was not contradicted.
Having established a prima facie case, the next issue for consideration was whether Superstore had a reasonable inspection and maintenance system in place. Superstore management confirmed that there were sweep logs for different departments in the store. The Judge found that the sweep log procedure and the maintenance of sweep logs for various departments of Superstore were, in principle, a reasonable system of inspection and maintenance.
The next question was whether Superstore was following this system at the time of the accident. The Judge carefully reviewed all of the evidence and found that Superstore had not established that they were following a system of inspection and maintenance on the day of the Plaintiff’s accident in the area where the accident occurred. As a result, Superstore was held liable for the Plaintiff’s injuries. The Judge also rejected the Defendant’s argument that the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent.
Prior to the accident, the Plaintiff was active and engaged both personally and professionally. She walked regularly, swam two to three times per week and was active in the community, most notably by volunteering. She was a valuable employee at work and was recognized as a hard worker. Friends and colleagues described her as cheerful, bright and optimistic prior to the accident. This all changed dramatically as a result of the accident.
After the accident, the Plaintiff suffered significantly from headaches. She also suffered from dizziness, imbalance, nausea, difficulties with concentration and memory, insomnia, and fatigue. She experienced a change in her mood and personality. She gained a considerable amount of weight and was no longer interested in socializing to the extent that she once was. In short, the Plaintiff was no longer the same person that she was before the accident.
The Judge found that the Plaintiff was now competitively unemployable and suffered from symptoms that appeared to be permanent. On that basis, the Judge awarded the Plaintiff:
- $175,000 for pain and suffering;
- $195,000 for past loss of income; and
- $375,000 for loss of future capacity to earn income.