Marche v. Empire Co. and Sobeys Inc.,

• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Judge: MacAdam, J.
• Citation: (2000), 183 N.S.R.(2d) 224 (SC)
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Date: 20 March 2000

Marche v. Empire Co. (2000), 183 N.S.R.(2d) 224 (SC);

 568 A.P.R. 224

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.004

Thora Marche (plaintiff) v. Empire Company Limited and Sobeys Inc. (defendants)

(S.SN. No. 107928)

Indexed As: Marche v. Empire Co. and Sobeys Inc.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

MacAdam, J.

March 20, 2000.

Summary:

The 68 year old plaintiff slipped on a grape in the produce section of the defen­dants' store, injuring her tailbone and lower back. The plaintiff brought an action for damages on the basis of occupiers' liability.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court allowed the action. The defendants' system for peri­odically detecting and removing unusual dangers was inadequate. Reasonable care required a more proactive policy for pre­venting the danger, rather than just respond­ing to the danger after it occurred.

Torts - Topic 3577

Occupiers' liability for dangerous premises - Negligence of occupier - Floors - The 68 year old plaintiff slipped on a grape in the produce section of a grocery store, injuring her tailbone and lower back - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court found the store liable - A grape on the floor consti­tuted an unusual danger - The store's system of promptly detecting and remov­ing produce on the floor was inadequate - Reasonable care required more than peri­odic inspection in the produce department, where grapes and other produce frequently fell to the floor - What was adequate in other departments, where spillage was less frequent, was not necessarily adequate in the produce department - The court noted that the store could have, inter alia, posted a warning of the danger, reduced the risk by altering the way the grapes were dis­played or packaged, or installed mats in high spillage areas in the produce depart­ment - Reasonable care required a more proactive system to reduce the risk rather than just reacting to it.

Torts - Topic 3705

Occupiers' liability for dangerous premises - Invitees - Liability of particular occu­piers (incl. duty and standard of care) - Retail business - [See Torts - Topic 3577 ].

Cases Noticed:

Campbell v. Royal Bank of Canada, [1964] S.C.R. 85, refd to. [para. 4].

Indermaur v. Dames (1866), L.R. 1 C.P. 274, refd to. [para. 4].

Smith v. Provincial Motors Ltd. (1962), 32 D.L.R.(2d) 204 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Fiddes v. Rayner Construction Ltd. (1963), 45 D.L.R.(2d) 367 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Vyas v. Board of Education of Colchester-East Hants District (1989), 94 N.S.R.(2d) 350; 247 A.P.R. 350 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Cole v. Perrin (1982), 52 N.S.R.(2d) 408; 106 A.P.R. 408 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

Breau v. Amherst (Town) (1996), 155 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 457 A.P.R. 161 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Garofalo v. Canada Safeway Ltd. (1998), 66 O.T.C. 241 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 15].

Young v. Sobeys Inc. (1994), 124 N.S.R.(2d) 399; 345 A.P.R. 399 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Bennett v. Dominion Stores Ltd. (1961), 30 D.L.R.(2d) 266 (N.S.T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Armsworthy-Wilson v. Sears Canada Inc. (1990), 100 N.S.R.(2d) 17; 272 A.P.R. 17 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Counsel:

William P. Burchell, for the plaintiff;

David Miller, Q.C., and Nancy Murray, for the defendants.

This action was heard on February 9-10, 2000, at Sydney, N.S., before MacAdam, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on March 20, 2000.