2019 QCCQ 6366, 2019 QCCQ 6366

Pietroniro c. Moretti 2019 QCCQ 6366 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF montreal Civil Division No: 500-32-156590-178 DATE: September 30, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONORABLE CAtherine Pilon J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ GIOVANNI PIETRONIRO Plaintiff v. DOMINIC MORETTI -and- INTACT ASSURANCE -and- INNOVASSUR ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES INC.

Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT RENDERED ON THE BENCH ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Giovanni Pietroniro claims $7 000 from Dominic Moretti further to a fall he suffered which caused him to fracture his left wrist. Mr. Pietroniro also claims against Intact Assurance and Innovassur Assurances Générales Inc. which he alleges are the liability insurers of Mr. Moretti. However, only Innovassur Assurances Générales Inc. is the insurer further to the evidence adduced at trial.

Context [ 2 ] The incident occurred on January 4, 2015, a Sunday, between 11:30am and 12:30pm at the property of Dominic Moretti, a duplex. [ 3 ] Mr. Moretti lives on the first floor of the property and rents the second floor to Mr. Pietroniro‘s girlfriend. A set of stairs lead to a balcony and two doors, one for Mr. Moretti’s apartment, the other to an interior staircase which leads to the upstairs apartment. [ 4 ] The weather the day of the incident was marked by the intermittent freezing rain since the morning. [ 5 ] As Mr.

Pietroniro was leaving his girlfriend’s apartment, he slipped and fell as he stepped on the balcony. He blames Mr. Moretti for not having salted the balcony and outside stairs which led to his fall. He also alleges that the banister was not compliant with industry standards so that he could not grab it to steady himself when he slipped. [ 6 ] Mr. Moretti rather testified that he had spread salt twice that morning, at proximately 8:30am and 11:15am because his family comes for lunch every Sunday.

He also testified that he is generally very diligent in maintaining the stairs and the balcony given that it is also the entrance to his own dwelling. A nalysis

[ 7 ] The Court must determine whether Mr. Pietroniro met his burden of proof to show that Mr. Moretti committed a fault which could can engage his liability and the liability of his insurer. [ 8 ] In such cases, the Court must consider the following principles as set out in Lamontagne v.

Timex Realty Corporation [1] : - The owner of a building does not have the obligation to foresee and prevent everything, particularly in the context of freezing and thawing in the same day; - Could the owner have prevented the incident by any means, and if so, did he deploy these means in a timely fashion; - The presence of ice does not create a presumption of liability; - An icy surface presents in itself a risk of slipping and falling, it does not constitute a trap and any person who engages on an icy surface must be prudent. [ 9 ] The Court cannot find that Mr.

Moretti committed any fault which can engage his liability. [ 10 ] Mr. Moretti was prudent and diligent by spreading salt twice in the morning of the incident. The Court has no reason to doubt his testimony in that regard, particularly given that he was concerned for his family’s safety since they were visiting for lunch. [ 11 ] Mr.

Pietroniro himself was aware of the freezing rain and should have been more prudent when he ventured outside. [ 12 ] Although this incident is unfortunate, the owner of a building is not automatically liable for any fall suffered by people who circulate on his property. [ 13 ] In addition, Mr. Pietroniro did not adduce any evidence to show that the banister was not compliant with industry standards, nor any evidence in support of the value of the damages that he claims.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the demand of the Plaintiff against the Defendants; THE WHOLE without court costs. __________________________________ CATHERINE PILON, j.c.q. Date of hearing: September 30, 2019