“Slip ‘n Fall” and Occupier Liability: Hypothetical Case Review in Alberta

Robin, a frequent customer at Shoppers Avenue, a local drugstore, visited the store on a rainy afternoon to pick up a few medications. While walking down one of the aisles, Robin slipped on a wet patch of the floor that had formed due to water from the rainy weather being tracked inside by other customers. The fall caused Robin to sustain both physical injuries, including a sprained ankle, and psychological injuries, such as anxiety and fear of future falls.

Robin now claims that Shoppers Avenue (the occupier of the premises) was negligent in its duty to ensure that the store was safe for customers. Robin argues that the store failed to take reasonable care to prevent her from being injured, and is now seeking damages for personal injury.

1. Legal Analysis of Robin’s Claims

1. Was Robin Injured While Visiting Shoppers Avenue?

Yes, Robin was injured while visiting Shoppers Avenue. She slipped and fell on a wet patch inside the store, which led to a sprained ankle. The physical injury was accompanied by psychological harm due to the trauma of the fall, resulting in anxiety and a fear of slipping again in similar environments.

• Did Shoppers Avenue Breach Its Statutory Duty of Care to Robin?

Robin’s legal claim hinges on whether Shoppers Avenue breached its statutory duty of care under the Alberta Occupiers Liability Act (OLA). This duty requires that occupiers (the store in this case) take reasonable care to ensure that their premises are safe for visitors, including customers like Robin.

1. Was the Risk of Harm Foreseeable?

The risk of a customer slipping and falling on a wet floor in the store was reasonably foreseeable. The store, like any other business, is aware that customers will often enter during rainy weather, bringing in moisture and dirt from the outside. A reasonable occupier should anticipate that water could accumulate at the entrance or on the floor and should take appropriate precautions to prevent slips and falls.

Alberta Courts have established by case law that the occupier must foresee the possibility of injury to a visitor and take steps to mitigate that risk. Given the nature of the store, where customers frequently walk on wet floors, the store should have been prepared to manage this foreseeable risk.

1. Did Shoppers Avenue Breach the Appropriate Standard of Care?

Even if the risk was foreseeable, Shoppers Avenue may not automatically be liable for the fall unless it breached the appropriate standard of care. The store’s duty is not to ensure perfection but to act reasonably.

In this case, Shoppers Avenue may have breached the standard of care if it failed to take reasonable steps to prevent a slip and fall accident. For instance, did the store have a system in place to regularly clean the floor, especially during rainy weather? Did the store fail to put up visible wet-floor signs or use mats to reduce the risk of slipping?

The Supreme Court of Canada case law has the mandatory expectation that the store should have assessed the likelihood of harm (wet floors), the severity of potential harm (slipping and spraining an ankle), and the cost of taking preventive measures (such as placing mats or increasing cleaning frequency). If the store did not take such measures, it would likely be considered a breach of the standard of care.

• Did Robin Sustain Damages?

Yes, Robin sustained damages as a result of the fall. The general damages include physical pain and suffering caused by the sprained ankle, as well as the loss of enjoyment of life due to her inability to walk properly after the incident. Additionally, Robin suffered psychological injuries, such as anxiety and fear of future falls, which have affected her mental well-being.

• Was the Damage Caused, in Fact and in Law, by Shoppers Avenue’s Breach?

Yes, the damage was likely caused by Shoppers Avenue’s breach. Robin’s fall was a direct result of the wet patch on the floor, which should have been reasonably foreseeable and managed by the store. If the store had adhered to its duty of care, such as by cleaning the floor or placing appropriate warnings, Robin’s injuries could have been prevented. Therefore, Shoppers Avenue’s failure to maintain a safe environment can be seen as the cause, in fact and in law, of Robin’s injuries.

2. Occupiers’ Liability: Did Shoppers Avenue Take Reasonable Care?

For Shoppers Avenue to avoid liability, it must show that it took reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its premises, particularly in light of the rainy weather.

1. Did Shoppers Avenue Implement a Reasonable System to Keep the Premises Safe?

Shoppers Avenue should have a system in place for cleaning and maintaining its floors, especially during bad weather. This could include placing wet-floor signs, using mats at entrances to reduce moisture, and increasing staff vigilance in cleaning up any water or liquid that customers may track inside.

If Shoppers Avenue had a system in place to address wet floors but failed to follow it (for example, the store failed to post wet-floor signs or clean the area where Robin fell), it may have breached its duty of care.

• Did Shoppers Avenue Adhere to Its Safety System?

In this case, if the store had a reasonable safety policy but did not adhere to it (e.g., the staff did not follow cleaning protocols during rainy days), this would further support Robin’s claim of negligence. If there is evidence that the store was negligent in adhering to its safety procedures, it strengthens the argument that Shoppers Avenue did not meet the required standard of care.

3. Quantum of Damages: What Compensation is Robin Entitled to?

1. General Damages

Robin is entitled to general damages for the pain, suffering, and loss of amenities caused by her physical injuries, including the sprained ankle and the emotional distress caused by the fall. These damages compensate Robin for both her physical injuries and her psychological harm, such as anxiety or fear of falling again in the future.

• Special Damages

In addition to general damages, Robin is entitled to special damages for the financial losses resulting from her injury. This might include:

1. Loss of income: If Robin had to take time off work due to her injury, she could claim compensation for lost wages.
2. Out-of-pocket expenses: Any medical costs, transportation expenses to and from doctor appointments, or costs associated with the injury (such as purchasing crutches or medical supplies) would be covered under special damages.
3. Psychological Injury: Was It Foreseeable? Robin’s psychological injuries, including her anxiety about walking in public places after the fall, are also relevant. Case law by the Supreme Court establishes that psychological injuries can be compensable if they are a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligent conduct. Given that the fall was traumatic for Robin, it is reasonable to foresee that a person of ordinary fortitude would experience psychological harm in such circumstances.

Conclusion

In this scenario, Robin’s case against Shoppers Avenue hinges on whether the store took reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable risks, such as a wet floor. If the store failed to implement or follow reasonable safety procedures, it likely breached its duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act, and Robin would be entitled to compensation for both her physical and psychological injuries.

Shoppers Avenue’s defense would likely center on proving that it had a reasonable system in place for ensuring safety and that it adhered to this system. If the store cannot demonstrate this, Robin’s claim of negligence and liability is likely to succeed.

Understandably, navigating these issues can be challenging irrespective of whether you are in Robin’s or Shoppers Avenue’s position. At Osuji & Smith we have experience personal injury lawyers who will help you review your situation and advise on next steps, especially in view of the time-sensitive nature of these claims. You should call now.

Contact Calgary Personal Injury Lawyers