INTRODUCTION
This 2024 judgement in the BC Supreme Court (the “BCSC”) involves a plaintiff who was injured when they tripped on an unfilled pothole in a 7-Eleven parking lot. The Court that determined 7-Eleven was at fault for the plaintiff’s injuries.
WHAT IS AN OCCUPIER?
The legal concept of an occupier is critical in many personal injury cases. Essentially, occupiers are those with physical possession, or responsibility and control over, a given premises. In the present case, 7-Eleven was the occupier, as they were the owner of the property (the store and parking lot) that the injury occurred on. The understanding of occupiers is critical, as they have considerable responsibilities to their patrons, known as a duty of care.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER FOR OCCUPIERS LIABILITY
As the injury in this case was caused by an unfilled pothole in the parking lot of the 7-Eleven store, the court determined that the relevant factors to determine the occupier’s duty of care would be in the context of maintenance and repairs of defects on the premises.
During the trial, a supervisor of 7-Eleven that oversaw maintenance and training testified on the company’s behalf. The supervisor’s testimony indicated that 7-Eleven did not adequately train employees regarding the maintenance of store exteriors, including parking lots, and that the reporting and remediation of hazards such as the pothole was largely insufficient. The policies and systems in place at the 7-Eleven in question were insufficient, and did not reach the legal standards expected of 7-Eleven as an occupier with a duty of care.
Some evidence that contributed to this finding included the fact that employees were only asked to complete maintenance training, with no repercussions for declining to do so; and that there was no concrete system of observing the state of repair of the interior or exterior of stores at the time. Therefore, the court ultimately found that the duty of care was breached by 7-Eleven, which made them liable to pay considerable damages to the injured plaintiff.
OCCUPIERS’ OBLIGATIONS
Due to a lack of effective systems and training, 7-Eleven was considered responsible for the injury that occurred to the plaintiff. While this may cause concern for other occupiers, it is worth noting that there are some concrete steps that can be taken to protect yourself from a similar fate.
First, it is critical not only to have an adequate maintenance and repair system on a premises, but to make sure that it is properly followed. In the 7-Eleven case, the company had a comprehensive system, but the training and upholding of the system was essentially optional, and otherwise not strictly enforced. The court ruled that, by not ensuring that the maintenance and repair system was followed, 7-Eleven was in breach of its duty of care to patrons.
Second, no delays should occur in attempting to make repairs or conduct maintenance on a premises. Even if a robust maintenance system is in place, with mandatory safety sweeps and log-keeping, it will be irrelevant if problems are not addressed quickly. In the present circumstances, traffic cones or other conspicuous warnings being placed around the pothole in the 7-Eleven parking lot would have not only likely prevented the injury, but even if the injury had occurred, the fault of the occupier would have been much more difficult to establish.
Ultimately, it is the knowledge of problems immediately after they occur, and proper systems to address them quickly, that helps occupiers avoid liability.
CONCLUSION AND FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The case of Tommy v. 7-Eleven Canada, Inc., 2024 BCSC 1558 demonstrates the nature of occupiers’ liability, and the rights of customers to compensation on the basis of businesses failing to meet their obligatory standards of maintenance and repair of their premises.
If you were injured in a trip or fall similar to this, contact Watson Goepel to discuss your claim.
