In Cannito v. Madison Properties Inc., 2018 ONSC 6190, the plaintiff went to a plaza in Toronto, Ontario and tripped and fell in the parking lot. She sued the owner of the property.
Immediately after the accident, the plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall. However, approximately two weeks later, after consulting with a lawyer, she returned to the parking lot and noticed a missing piece from a speed bump.
On discovery and at trial, the plaintiff stated "there was a piece missing and maybe that's what I tripped [on] and then I fell".
In dismissing the plaintiff's lawsuit, Justice O'Marra stated that an inference of causation must be based on objective facts rather than conjecture or speculation. He said that "speculative theories are insufficient to establish liability".
Justice O'Marra indicated that there was no objective evidence to connect the plaintiff's fall with any deficiency with the speed bump.
Aside from the plaintiff's speculative theory on how she tripped, Justice O'Marra determined that the speed bump was properly marked with yellow paint.
Justice O'Marra concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant breached its duty of care pursuant to the Occupiers' Liability Act or caused her injuries as a result of any breach.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
