St-Pierre v. LeQuang, (2005) 291 N.B.R.(2d) 276 (CA)

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Judge: Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Deschênes and Richard, JJ.A.
• Citation: (2005), 291 N.B.R.(2d) 276 (CA),2005 NBCA 102
• Date: 21 September 2005

St-Pierre v. LeQuang (2005), 291 N.B.R.(2d) 276 (CA);

    291 R.N.-B.(2e) 276; 758 A.P.R. 276

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2005] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.037

Gabriel St-Pierre (appellant) v. Ha LeQuang (respondent)

(21/05/CA; 2005 NBCA 102)

Indexed As: St-Pierre v. LeQuang

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Deschênes and Richard, JJ.A.

September 21, 2005.

Summary:

The plaintiff further injured his back when he slipped and fell on a floor that had just been washed in the defendant's restaurant. The plaintiff sued.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 277 N.B.R.(2d) 33; 727 A.P.R. 33, dis­missed the action and made a provisional assessment of damages. The plaintiff ap­pealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dis­missed the appeal.

Torts - Topic 6619

Defences - Contributory negligence - Par­ticular cases - Dangerous premises - After having seen an employee with a mop and a pail, the plaintiff slipped and fell on a floor that had just been washed in the defendant's restaurant - He further injured his back - The trial judge held that the plaintiff bore sole responsibility for his injury - The sight of a mop and a pail or a handle in a pail should have had the same effect as seeing a yellow sign indicating that the floor was wet - The plaintiff had the duty to exercise reasonable care and attention to ensure his own safety - The defendant had provided reasonably safe premises for his patrons - The New Bruns­wick Court of Appeal affirmed the deci­sion.

Cases Noticed:

McAdam et al. v. McIlveen et al. (2002), 252 N.B.R.(2d) 35; 658 A.P.R. 35 (C.A.), consd. [para. 4].

Papadopoulos v. T.D.L. Group Ltd., [1997] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 114 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Legood v. Atlantic Wholesalers Ltd., [2002] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 5 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Dashwood v. Pillars Club & Lounge Inc., [2002] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 32 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Lampert v. Simpson-Sears Ltd. (1984), 57 N.B.R.(2d) 227; 148 A.P.R. 227 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Jones v. Richard (2000), 226 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 579 A.P.R. 207 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

McAllister v. Wal-Mart Canada Inc. (2000), 228 N.B.R.(2d) 230; 588 A.P.R. 230 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Reid v. Hatty (2005), 279 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 732 A.P.R. 202 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2005), 346 N.R. 395 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Roy v. Doucet (2005), 288 N.B.R.(2d) 12; 751 A.P.R. 12 (C.A.), consd. [para. 7].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.), consd. [para. 9].

Counsel:

Larry Landry, for the appellant;

Lucie Richard, for the defendant.

This appeal was heard on September 21, 2005, by Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Deschênes and Richard, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.

The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally in both official languages by Drapeau, C.J.N.B., on Septem­ber 21, 2005.