2019 QCCQ 7558, 2019 QCCQ 7558

Li c. Busac Inc. 2019 QCCQ 7558 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-703043-176 DATE: October 18, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ARMANDO AZNAR, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ BO LI Plaintiff v. BUSAC INC. Defendant and AVIVA CANADA INC.

Defendant in warranty ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff claims from Defendant, Busac Inc., an amount of $4 934.66 in compensation for the injuries and losses he alleges to have sustained as a result of an accident that occurred on or about March 13, 2017. [ 2 ] More particularly, on the above date, Plaintiff alleges that he walked through the entrance of a building property of Defendant, Busac Inc., at which time, the entrance door unexpectedly and abruptly closed on his left hand thereby injuring two fingers. [ 3 ] Plaintiff alleges that his injuries are the result of a malfunction of the “hydraulic door closer” of the said door. [ 4 ] Defendant, Busac Inc., contests Plaintiff’s demand alleging that it has committed no fault and was not negligent in any manner regarding the maintenance of the entrance doors of the building. [ 5 ] Furthermore, Defendant, Busac Inc., has instituted an action in warranty against Aviva Canada Inc., its liability insurer, demanding that it be condemned to indemnify it in case of a condemnation in favour of Plaintiff in the present case. [ 6 ] From the evidence adduced at trial, the Court retains, amongst other facts, the following ones. [ 7 ] On the morning of March 13, 2017, Plaintiff left his home to go to his place of work situated in a building bearing no. 845 St Catherine East in Montreal, property of Defendant, Busac Inc. [ 8 ] At the entrance of the building there are two distinct sets of doors.

One set permits the entry from the street to the inside of the building and the other set permits the entry to the inside of the building where the offices are situated. [ 9 ] The accident occurred while Defendant was crossing the second set of doors leading from the inside of the building to the area where the offices are situated. [ 10 ] Plaintiff testified he entered the building with a cup of coffee in his right hand and a backsack on his right shoulder.

He opened the first set of doors without any problem but experienced difficulty in opening the second set of doors where the accident occurred. [ 11 ] From the video taken at the time of the accident by the security camera of the building (exhibit D-2), one can see the Plaintiff entering the principal door, without any difficulty. However, when he gets to the second set of doors, one can see that it is difficult for him to open the door. When he manages to do so and enters, the door closes rapidly and abruptly while he is crossing the entrance.

The accident occurred at this particular time. [ 12 ] It is Plaintiff’s testimony that when he opened the door and tried to get through the entrance, his left hand was caught between the door and the door frame thereby causing injury to two fingers. [ 13 ] Defendant Busac Inc. and Defendant in warranty, Aviva Canada Inc., had the door in question examined by Mr. Patrice Rochon, building technologist.

[ 14 ] According to Mr. Rochon’s testimony and according to his report dated April 25, 2017, he inspected the door where the accident occurred on April 5, 2017. In his opinion, the inspection revealed that the door was in good working order and that the installation was in conformity with the National Building Code. [ 15 ] However, in his report, Mr.

Rochon did write the following : « 7) Dans le portique en cause, lors des tests d’ouvertures et fermetures que nous effectuions à la porte en cause, nous avons constaté que parfois, le déplacement d’air dans le portique venait influencer sur la force que nous devions soudainement exercer sur la poignée afin d’être en mesure d’ouvrir ladite porte. Plus précisément, la force nécessaire à l’ouverture de ladite porte, devait être augmentée. À l’inverse, ces déplacements d’air qui survenaient parfois dans ce portique, ne nous ont pas semblé avoir une influence d’accroissement de la vitesse de fermeture de la porte.

Ce qui est logique, puisque lors de la fermeture d’une porte pourvu d’un cylindre hydraulique, le rôle du cylindre-de-porte est justement de maintenir la vitesse de la porte à son réglage de « vitesse de fermeture », sans possibilité de permettre un accroissement de la « vitesse de fermeture ». Cependant, ces déplacements d’air qui survenaient parfois dans ce portique, semblaient avoir également une influence de réduction de la vitesse de fermeture de la porte. Ce qui est encore logique, puisqu’un cylindre hydraulique n’est pas conçu pour empêcher le maintient d’une porte en position ouverte.

C’est l’humain, lorsqu’il cesse de tenir la porte, que cette dernière commence son cycle de fermeture. Le fait d’avoir soudainement de la difficulté à ouvrir la porte en cause, conséquence d’un déplacement soudain d’air dans le portique, n’accroit pas le risque de blessure si nos mains, voire nos doigts, ne sont pas insérés dans ce qui reste d’espace entre l’encadrement de l’ouverture-de-porte et ladite porte. Au pire, elle empêchera l’usager, pendant quelques secondes, d’ouvrir la porte.

Bien entendu, cette capacité de pourvoir ouvrir une porte comme celle en cause, dépend de la force que peut exercer l’usager, fonction de ces capacités physiques du moment. Capacités qui peuvent être influencées par le physique, la santé, l’âge, ou les encombrants que peut transporter l’usager. » (sic) [ 16 ] This being said, Plaintiff’s testimony is to the effect that the door of the entrance closed on his left hand in an abrupt and unexpected manner.

His testimony is corroborated by the camera video filed into evidence as Exhibit D-2 which reveals that the door in question closed in what appears to be an unexpected and abrupt manner. [ 17 ] According to Mr. Rochon, the hydraulic close mechanism of the door should have prevented the door from closing abruptly. However, as it did close abruptly, one can only conclude that, in all probability, the door mechanism did not function properly on the day of the accident. This is the causa causans of the said accident. [ 18 ]

Article 1465 C.c.Q. states the following : 1465. The custodian of a thing is bound to make reparation for injury resulting from the autonomous act of the thing, unless he proves that he is not at fault. [ 19 ] In the present case, Defendant Busac Inc. has been unable to explain why the door closed down on Plaintiff’s hand in such an abrupt and unexpected manner.

Furthermore it has not established that Plaintiff acted in a negligent manner causing in whole or in part the occurrence of the accident which, in all probability, should not have occurred where it not for the malfunction of the door mechanism. [ 20 ] Consequently, the Court concludes that Defendant Busac Inc. has not rebutted the presumption of responsibility imposed upon it by

article 1465 C.c.Q . [ 21 ] Furthermore, applying the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur , negligence on the part of Defendant Busac Inc. can be inferred from the very facts surrounding the occurrence of the accident. [ 22 ] This being so, the Court concludes that Defendant Busac Inc., must be held totally responsible for the accident that occurred on March 13, 2017 and for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff.

As for the damages claimed, Plaintiff did sustain injury to two fingers of his left hand but did not sustain any loss of salary. [ 23 ] This being so, Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for harm to his physical integrity and for pain and suffering. In this regard, the Court grants Plaintiff a total of $2,500.00. [ 24 ] Finally, as concerns the action in warranty instituted by Defendant Busac Inc. against Defendant in warranty Aviva Canada Inc., as the latter is the liability insurer of the former and as it has not contested its contractual obligation towards its insured, the said action is maintained.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASON, THE COURT : MAINTAINS Plaintiff’s demand in part ; CONDEMNS Defendant Busac Inc. to pay to Plaintiff the sum of $2,500.00 with interest at the legal rate of 5% per annum and the additional indemnity provided for by provisions of

article 1619 C.c.Q. as of March 13, 2017 plus the judicial costs in the amount of $100.00 ; MAINTAINS Defendant’s Busac Inc. action in warranty ; CONDEMNS Defendant in warranty, Aviva Canada Inc. to indemnify Defendant, Busac Inc., of the pecuniary consequences of the present judgment, in capital, interest and judicial costs.

__________________________________ ARMANDO AZNAR, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: October 1, 2019