The plaintiff slipped on ice in the parking lot of her apartment complex managed by the firm
In a recent ruling, the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench addressed several motions arising from a slip and fall incident, ultimately granting summary judgment in favour of the defendant, Woodside Realty Inc.
The case stems from an incident where the plaintiff, Glenda Morton, slipped on ice in the parking lot of her apartment complex, managed by Woodside. The incident, which occurred on the morning of February 7, 2019, led to claims against Woodside for failing to maintain safe conditions during winter.
During the proceedings, affidavits were presented from multiple parties, including Leonard Wood from Woodside, Gabrielle Maltais representing the defence, and representatives from Charles Smith Construction Ltd. (CSC), the third-party responsible for winter maintenance. Morton and former counsel Stephen M. Trueman also submitted affidavits. The court considered objections regarding the admissibility of certain affidavit contents but allowed limited use of the discovery transcripts and authenticated documents from the legal file.
The factual background established in court indicated that Morton slipped near her vehicle on ice hidden by snow despite wearing appropriate winter boots. Weather reports confirmed snowfall the previous day. Morton argued that improperly directed waterspouts contributed to ice formation, a claim countered by Woodside’s maintenance evidence. The court found photographic evidence inconclusive and favoured the testimony of Woodside’s employee over Morton’s claims.
Woodside argued that CSC's maintenance efforts were sufficient, noting that salt had been applied to parts of the parking lot early on the day of the incident. Morton’s awareness of the icy conditions was discussed concerning contributory negligence but was not central to the court’s determination of the standard of care.
The court applied the principles of negligence and occupier’s liability, emphasizing that the presence of ice alone does not prove negligence if reasonable maintenance is performed. The court cited previous rulings to highlight that the standard of care requires a reasonable maintenance system rather than perfection. The evidence showed that CSC performed regular maintenance and that their actions on the day prior and the day of the incident met the reasonable standard of care.
In conclusion, the court found no breach of standard of care by Woodside and determined that no genuine issue required a trial. As a result, summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendant, dismissing the action against Woodside.
