Edna Polley - v. -, 2015 SKPC 122

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN CIVIL DIVISION Citation: 201 5 SKPC 122 Date: August 12, 2015 File: 228/14 Location: Regina Saskatchewan _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Edna Polley - and - All Nations’ Healing Hospital Inc. Niel Halford For the Plaintiff Ryan Kitzul For the Defendant JUDGMENT P. DEMONG, J Introduction [ 1 ] Edna Polley is a 71 year old retired resident at the Town of Fort Qu’Appelle.

She alleges that she attended the All Nations’ Healing Hospital Inc. (a medical facility) located in the Town of Fort Qu’Appelle at approximately 11:00 a.m. on the 19 th day of February 2014, for the purposes of receiving medical attention. As she walked up to the sidewalk to the front entrance of the facility, she alleges that she slipped and fell on the sidewalk and fell heavily and injured her ribs and caused further unspecified damage to her back and neck.

[2] Ms. Polley alleges that the sidewalk was icy and covered in snow. She alleges that she was wearing appropriate footwear and that AllNations’ as an occupier of the premises knew or ought to have known of the slippery condition of the sidewalk and should have takensteps to alleviate what she considered to be an unusual danger. In the alternative she alleges that All Nations’ should have taken steps to warn personsattending the facility of this unusual danger. [3] Ms. Polley seeks general damages in the sum of $2,000.00 but no special damages.

While she originally claimed monies due andowing for the subrogated claim of the Saskatchewan Department of Health for treating her injury, documentation filed at Court did notdisclose any particular money spent by the Ministry of Health for the injuries she complained of, and as a result, that claim wasabandoned at Court, and subsequently dismissed by the Court. [4] All Nations’ has filed a dispute note. It denies that there was an unusual danger at the requisite time, and puts Ms. Polley to the strictproof thereof.

If there was an accumulation of ice and snow, it alleges that the presence of ice and snow on a sidewalk in February inFort Qu’Appelle is not an unusual danger, but rather, a common experience and to be expected. [5] In the alternative, All Nations’ says that it took reasonable steps to alleviate this potential danger, in that it did, on the date ofquestion, follow the prescribed snow and ice removal policy that it had in place. All Nations’ alleges, rather, that the losses sustained byMs.

Polley arose either entirely or in part through her own negligence in that she failed to wear proper footwear and failed to takereasonable care for her own safety. [6] In the further alternative, All Nations’ places into issue the nature and extent of her injuries and further allege that Ms. Polley failed totake reasonable steps to mitigate her injuries, damages and loss.

Issues [7] This case has been pleaded and argued as one of occupier liability with both parties viewing the relationship existing between them asthat of invitor and invitee, and not as that of contractual entrant. [8] As stated by Kovach J., in Zoltan v Saskatchewan (Liquor and Gaming Authority), 2000 SKQB 429 at paragraph 11, theduty of care that an occupier is expected to exercise in relation to an invitee is as set out in Indermaur v Dames, [1861-1873] All ER 15 asthe duty to use reasonable care to prevent damage from an unusual danger which it knows or ought to know.

In Pontarollo v WestfairFoods Ltd. et al (1996), (SK QB), 150 Sask R 71 at 73 (Sask QB), Noble J. states the questions as follows: [5] (

a) Was there an unusual danger? (

b) Did the defendant know of the unusual danger? (

c) Did the defendant take reasonable care to prevent damage to the plaintiff while she was on the premises? (

d) Did the plaintiff use reasonable care for her safety? [9] Once the above noted issues are determined, the only other issue for determination of the Court is whether or not damages should beawarded, and the amount thereof. Evidence and Findings of Fact [10] When Edna Polley took the stand, it became clear that she had a number of physical limitations and a somewhat diminished mentalcapacity. Her lawyer stipulated for the record that she was suffering from incipient Alzheimer’s disease. As such, her evidence was quite

limited. She stated that she had fallen on the sidewalk leading up to the front entrance of the All Nations’ medical facility and that her legs were sore and her body hurt from falling. On cross-examination, it was clear that she lived in Saskatchewan for most, if not all, of her life. She recalls wearing runners as footwear, and that she felt that there was ice on the sidewalk and covered by snow, and that when she slipped, she fell backwards. [ 11 ] She was of the view that her husband had not been with her at the time and that she had come with her sister.

She confirmed that she had been to the hospital many times before, and that on almost every occasion she took the front entrance. [ 12 ] Because of her diminished capacity, she was unable to identify specifically the nature of the injuries that she sustained, or any of the pre-existing conditions which she had prior to the accident.

When presented with a number of medical documents that were submitted by consent of the parties, she could not understand or comprehend the full contents of the medical reports, having only a grade two education. [ 13 ] I was advised by the parties that I could accept the medical reports set forth in Exhibit D-1 as identifying accurately the nature and extent of pre-existing medical conditions, and the problems associated with the slip and fall.

In or about April of 2011, she had undergone a right ankle fusion, with bone grafting and internal fixation as well as the isolation of the neuro vascular bundle anteriorly.

This surgery arose by virtue of the plaintiff falling on a sidewalk some four years earlier. [ 14 ] There is no question that the ankle continued to bother her in the ensuing years, and caused her to occasionally use both a walker and a cane up until the February 2014 slip and fall and beyond. [ 15 ] In addition the plaintiff has had previous slip and falls, when she reported slipping on ice and landing on her back side; thereafter complaining of back pain and headaches. [ 16 ] The emergency outpatient report prepared on February 19, 2014, after her arrival at the All Nations’ medical facility just after her slip and fall (11:25 a.m.), indicated that she reported falling on her left side while attending the medical facility for x-rays.

She was tender over the ninth and tenth rib. A diagnosis, which was later discounted, suggested a fractured rib. [ 17 ] There is no doubt that, prior to the accident, she was rather restricted in terms of mobility. [ 18 ] Roy Polley is Ms. Polley’s husband. He is 77 years old and retired from his previous job as a heavy equipment operator. He has been together with Ms. Polley for the better part of 50 years. [ 19 ] Contrary to Edna Polley’s suggestion, Mr. Polley maintained that at the time of the accident she was wearing a pair of winter boots with a zipper on the inside.

He indicated that she was attending at the medical centre for blood tests. [ 20 ] When asked whether or not Ms. Polley used a walker before the accident, he indicated that she did not because she did not need it. Mr. Polley says that on the day in question, he drove Edna to All Nations’. He drove onto the parking lot and stopped his car on the road to allow Edna to exit the vehicle. He said that Edna got out of the vehicle and waited for him while he parked the car. He says that they attended the facility at about 11:00 a.m. because he assumed by that time, the sidewalks would be cleared of ice and snow.

He indicated that he had his arm around her for support as they started walking up the sidewalk to the front entrance of the medical facility. Photographs of the accident site indicate that there is a curving sidewalk perhaps twenty feet in length before the front entrance to the medical facility which is covered by an overhang. To the immediate left are a series of metal benches, and beyond those, there is an open area of land covered in gravel. Mr. Polley indicated that he had walked to approximately the distance of the second bench. I estimate ten to twelve feet.

He indicated that Edna was on his left side and he was hanging onto her as she was walking. He said as they approached the second bench or thereabouts, she slipped and fell between the benches landing primarily on her left side. He testified that his inspection revealed ice under the snow. [ 21 ] After bringing her into the medical facility, he stepped outside for a cigarette and he saw two individuals cleaning the sidewalk. He indicated that in his view they looked rushed, as if they’re trying to push the snow off as quickly as possible.

By his estimation, as they approached the sidewalk there was perhaps four inches of snow covering the sidewalk.

[ 22 ] On cross-examination, he was asked about the handicapped parking sticker that they have on their vehicle. He indicated that it was obtained for Edna Polley because a number of years earlier, she had a stroke and heart attack and had mobility problems since that time. [ 23 ] He also stated that when he went for a cigarette the person that came out to shovel the snow carried two pails, one was sand and one was de-icer, and stated to him words to the effect of: “See I have everything under control now.” Following Mr.

Polley’s testimony, the plaintiff closed their case. [ 24 ] The defendant’s first witness was Gail Boehme. Since 2008 she has been the Executive Director for All Nations’. Her role is to implement the board’s directions and recommendations and policies. [ 25 ] Her office is in the medical facility itself. She indicates that she is a resident of Fort Qu’Appelle, and resides at 644 Boundary Avenue, directly across the street from where the plaintiff has lived for the last six years. [ 26 ] Ms. Boehme indicated that prior to the accident she had ample opportunity to observe Mrs.

Polley, and particularly her mobility. While she could not be certain that she had ever seen Mrs. Polley using a walker, she indicated that she has seen Edna Polley use a cane for going up and down stairs for the last six years. [ 27 ] Ms. Boehme indicated that All Nations’ has a written policy on snow and ice removal which was introduced in October of 2012 and which was in place on the date of the accident. The policy was apparently in response to several previous years of heavy snow. The policy includes inter alia , the obligation to do a sweep or walk through at 7:00 a.m. in the morning.

The maintenance staff is to do a visual inspection of all of the access locations to the building and, as needed, remove any accumulated snow and ice, and to apply sand and de-icer. The policy also indicates that a second sweep is to be undertaken just before lunch on any given day and then one last review just before 5:00 p.m., when the facility closes. [ 28 ] When asked how the policy was monitored, Ms. Boehme conceded that they used documents to track the monitoring in maintaining the facilities, but they did not start using these until after the February 2014 fall.

She confirmed that it is incumbent on the men employed in maintenance to oversee the policy. James Isabelle is the maintenance engineer in charge. [ 29 ] Ms. Boehme says that she had attended at the medical facility at approximately 7:00 a.m. on the day in question. She indicated that she observed maintenance clearing snow when she got there. She indicated that they started at the Emergency entrance which is approximately forty feet from the main entrance. She recalls that it was approximately -5 to -10 Celsius and was snowing. She could not specifically recall any wind.

Notwithstanding that she has worked at the facility for the better part of 8 years, she indicated that she has never once seen ice form or pool on the sidewalk leading to the front entrance. She has never once seen water overflow from any eavestroughs from the side of the front entrance onto the sidewalk. She indicated that once the snow becomes more than 2 ½ inches thick, All Nations’ has a contractor which will attend on the facility to remove the snow. [ 30 ] In cross-examination, much time was spent attempting to convince Ms.

Boehme that there is real propensity that water can accumulate on the overhang of the front entrance, and pour down the eavestroughs which pour onto the gravel beside the sidewalk. The suggestion put to Ms. Boehme was that, more likely than not, water in fact had gone down the eavestroughs, accumulated onto the gravel, and then pooled onto the sidewalk itself. Ms. Boehme indicated that she had never seen that happen and that it was unlikely because the sidewalk lip is somewhat higher than the rocks in question.

On a passing note, the plaintiff invited me to infer that this is how ice may have accumulated under the snow. Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatsoever to confirm that this actually occurred. As such, it is simply supposition. [ 31 ] The plaintiff next called James Isabelle. He was born in 1959, and originally hired in 1983 by the Fort Qu’Appelle Health District where he worked in maintenance until 2004. Thereafter, he transferred to All Nations’ and continued working there until his retirement in April of 2014. [ 32 ] Mr.

Isabelle’s job, among other things, is to provide grounds maintenance and ice and snow removal. [ 33 ] Mr. Isabelle indicated that maintenance is done from day to day. It is done when he attends in the morning; he unlocks the doors, and works from 7:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. While he was sure that All Nations’ had a maintenance policy in place for snow removal on the date in question, he indicated that he actually could not recall actually seeing the written policy.

[ 34 ] Mr. Isabelle indicated that he was never late for work. At about 6:45 in the morning, he will attend at the premises, and do his rounds commencing at 7:00 a.m. He says that he will, if necessary, remove the snow and ice, and apply sand and salt. He says that it is based on common sense and is done on an as needed basis. [ 35 ] While Mr. Isabelle cannot specifically recall doing his rounds on the morning in question, he indicated that he started to remove snow at approximately 8:45 a.m. in the morning. He started at the Emergency entrance.

Thereafter, he says he would have moved to the front entrance and then to sidewalks and then to the ceremonial grounds. At about 8:45, he says he was removing ice from the Emergency entrance, and at or about that time, had to walk to the other side of the building to obtain sand and de-icer. While he was aware that there was ice at the Emergency entrance, he indicated that he did not see any ice on the front sidewalk, only snow.

He further indicated that he had never seen ice or water on the sidewalk while working at All Nations’. [ 36 ] During the course of his cross-examination, it became apparent that there was a significant delay between his decision to leave the Emergency area at 8:45 a.m. and his return with the sand and the de-icer. He indicated that he had attended back to the front entrance at or about the same time that he observed Mr. Polley having a cigarette at the front entrance. Mr.

Polley’s evidence had been that he assisted his wife into the medical facility and assisted her for some time in the medical facility, and then shortly thereafter went out to have a cigarette. As such, and because the admission report indicates that she was admitted for her injury at 11:25 a.m., I am satisfied that the 11:00 a.m. time frame for the slip and fall is accurate. From that, I infer that it would have been sometime after 11:00 a.m. that he was having a cigarette, and when he first met Mr. Isabelle. Mr. Isabelle confirms that he attended and had a short conversation with Mr.

Polley, and at that time, immediately started to remove the snow, and apply salt and de-icer. Mr. Isabelle did not see the accident in question. [ 37 ] In further cross-examination and in questions put to him from the bench, Mr. Isabelle was satisfied that yes, in fact, he had often seen water and ice accumulate on the front sidewalk. More often than not, however, this occurred in early spring and late fall. It would, he suggested, be most unusual to see ice accumulate in February in cold weather. [ 38 ] The defendant’s final witness was Michael George.

Michael George was passing by the front sidewalk at the time of the slip and fall. He indicated that he was approximately 10 car lengths away from the accident, and in his car when he noticed that Mr. Polley had a walker with him, but that Edna Polley was not using a walker. To his recollection, she fell forward rather than to her side. He indicated that the front of her body struck the bench as she fell and to his recollection, he saw her fall on the bench closest to the front entrance to the facility, which would be about ten feet closer to the front entrance than estimated by Mr. Polley.

He confirmed that there was snow on the sidewalk, and to his recollection it was windy and currently snowing. He indicated that it was “like a blizzard going on”. Finding of Fact [ 39 ] I am satisfied that at the time of Mrs. Polley’s fall there was an accumulation of between two and four inches of snow on the entire sidewalk leading up to the front entrance of the building. I am satisfied that it was snowing at the time of Mrs. Polley’s fall and that it was windy. I discount Mr. George’s evidence that it was blizzard-like conditions. Certainly neither Mr. Polley nor Mr. Isabelle stated as much.

Evidence was led showing that the wind at Indian head was gusting to 41 kilometres per hour and that the weather in Fort Qu’Appelle is or would be similar to Indian Head. The occasional gust of wind to 41 kilometres per hour, does not, in my view, constitute blizzard-like conditions. [ 40 ] I am satisfied that Mrs. Polley was wearing winter boots and being supported by her husband as she walked along the sidewalk and that she had waited for him to park his car and assist her before she stepped onto the sidewalk. I accept that Mr. Polley had decided to wait to bring Mrs.

Polley to All Nations’ until 11:00 a.m. because he wanted to ensure that the sidewalk was clear of ice and snow before they attended at the facility. [ 41 ] I am satisfied that at 11:00 a.m., notwithstanding the policy established by All Nations’, the entire sidewalk leading up to the front entrance was covered in snow and that All Nations’ had not, from the time it had opened that morning, attempted to clear either a portion of, or any of the snow, nor had it applied sand and/or de-icer. [ 42 ] While the existence of ice under the snow is subject to two different observations (Mr.

Polley asserts there was ice and Mr. Isabelle asserts there was not), I am satisfied that the condition of the sidewalk was slippery and therefore there was some slight accumulation of ice under the snow ... it was certainly slippery enough that a woman like Mrs. Polley, in a diminished physical condition, could not adequately maintain her footing, even with the assistance of her then 76 year old husband holding her. I note also that immediately

following the event, Mr. Isabelle attended not only with shovels, but also sand and de-icer to remove the slippery condition. I further notethat Mr.

Isabelle could not fairly comment on the existence of ice at the location of the fall simply because he was not present during thefall and could not have known of the precise location of the fall. [43] Finally, as a resident of Saskatchewan for the better part of fifty years, I take judicial notice of the fact that the application of graveland a de-icing agent on bare concrete in February in Saskatchewan operates to create a gritty and/or less slippery surface which provides greater traction and greater stability to personswalking along a concrete sidewalk even if that surface has a two inch covering of snow.

The Law (

a) At the time of this incident, was there an unusual danger? [44] The defendant urges this Court to conclude that the accumulation of ice and snow and the corresponding slippery condition of asidewalk in February in Saskatchewan is a fact of life and is not an unusual danger and that it is to be expected. The defendant hasreferred to a number of cases in support of that proposition. [45] The plaintiff offers the Court a more nuanced argument.

She says that while ice and snow accumulation may not constitute anunusual danger in certain situations, it may constitute an unusual danger in other situations. [46] There is no question that walking on ice and snow is dangerous. Does it become both dangerous and unusual in some situations andnot others? I am satisfied that it does. In Joubert v Davidner, (SK CA), 3 DLR (3d)148, Brownridge J.A. agreed withthe line of reasoning Disbery J. had employed in the lower court and dismissed an appeal therefrom.

Disbery J., citing authority fromboth our Supreme Court and the House of Lords noted that the phrase “unusual danger” is a relative term. It is relative not only to thekind of premises visited but also to the class of persons to which the visitor belongs. [47] Examples of this kind of reasoning abound. What may be usual qua a skilled carpenter working on premises under constructionmight be unusual to an ordinary person.

What may be usual to a groundskeeper may be unusual to children playing in that same park. [48] The analysis therefore goes much further than a simple across the board assertion that ice and snow in February, in Saskatchewan,is typical and therefore not an unusual danger. The analysis must consider both the kind of premises visited and the class of persons towhich the visitor belongs. [49] In the instant circumstances the occupier is a medical facility. It is a medical facility which has only one entrance other than anEmergency entrance.

A medical facility knows or certainly ought to know that the class of its visitors often and sometimes invariablyinclude those that are aged, and mentally or physically diminished, and that they suffer from physical ailments which necessarily detractfrom both their mobility and their ability to discern and avoid potential dangers. [50] In the instant circumstances, the plaintiff is clearly one of the visitors in this type of class. She had mobility restrictions and a historyof a bad back.

Certainly her ankle caused her a problem, which in turn is borne out by the evidence of Gail Boehme who has seen herusing a cane for the last six years. [51] I am of the view that Mrs. Polley, as a member of this particular type of physically limited invitee class, would reasonably assumethat the hospital would have taken steps, by 11:00 a.m. on any given day, to ameliorate or reduce the danger of a slippery front sidewalkby either shovelling a small path of snow to clear the sidewalk, or by laying down sand and/or de-icer at some point in the morning toreduce her potential risk of harm. Indeed, this is why Mr.

Polley says he waited until later in the morning to drive his wife to the facility.

[ 52 ] I find support for this proposition when I consider the decision of Armstrong J. in Pipher v Canadian Tire Corp. Ltd. et al,

(1989) CanLII 4625 (SK QB): [4] ...But as a manner of ordinary experience it is not unusual to encounter ice under snow in winter in Saskatchewan. However, a danger, though not otherwise unusual may be unusual in the eyes of the law. This latter can occur when the danger is found in a place where an invitee is entitled to think it would not be found because of the precautions an invitor might reasonably be expected to have taken. [ 53 ] As I stated earlier, I have discounted plaintiff counsel’s suggestion that water flowed from an eavestrough onto the gravel and then onto the sidewalk and froze.

I accept however that there was some ice at the location where Mrs. Polley fell . I accept Mr. Polley’s evidence on this point, as opposed to Mr. Isabelle, who conceded that he could not recall much of what happened on the day in question. His assertion that there was no ice rings hollow when he did not, at the time of the incident even know precisely where Mrs. Polley had fallen. I am satisfied that this ice was covered by snow and was not in any way ameliorated by any earlier application of gravel or de-icer. I am satisfied that reasonable people of the class to which Mrs.

Polley belongs would operate on the reasonable assumption that some steps would have been taken by All Nations’ to ameliorate this condition within a few hours of a medical facility opening. I am satisfied that this slippery condition would have been hidden from Mrs. Polley by the accumulation of snow. Therefore I conclude that at the time of the slip and fall, and at the location of this slip and fall, the accumulation of ice and snow was an unusual danger. (

b) Did the defendant know or ought it to have known of this unusual danger? [ 54 ] I am satisfied that while the defendant may not have known of this unusual danger it ought to have known. The evidence is clear to me that All Nations’ is absolutely cognizant of the potential for the accumulation of ice and snow on the sidewalk leading up to the front entrance of the facility. They have maintenance personnel to attend to this problem. They have contractors that they can call when the snow becomes too deep. They have a protocol in effect to deal with this problem. They have shovels and a stock of gravel and de-icer. (

c) Did the defendant take reasonable care to prevent damage to the plaintiff while she was on their premises? [ 55 ] In the instant circumstances it is clear that between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., no work was done whatsoever in relation to the sidewalk leading to the front entrance. In exigent circumstances, such as a severe storm, or sickness of maintenance personnel or some other compelling reason, there might be an excuse for this nonfeasance, but at trial there was no reason given why nothing had been done regarding the sidewalk. Mr.

Isabelle testified that he was, at or about 8:45 a.m., clearing the ice at the Emergency doors, but he stated that he left that job at or about that time and went to get sand and de-icer. The accident occurred at 11:00 a.m. and he had not returned to that task. He cannot recall what he may have been doing during this interim period of time.

As such the defendant has presented no evidence, and no reasonable explanation, for the lapse in attending to the front sidewalk. [ 56 ] The fact that the defendant has a policy and protocols in place to deal with clearing ice and snow does not assist All Nations’ in this action. The policy clearly states that it is a goal of the maintenance department to provide safe access and that pre-treatment and ice control may be addressed in advance of a storm, and during an actual storm.

Maintenance is to be dispatched at 7:00 a.m. to check all sidewalks and other accesses, and the policy clearly states that all snow will be removed in priority at the front Emergency entrance, then the heli-pad and then public sidewalks. In addition, regular monitoring of all areas is to be completed during the day if snow continues. [ 57 ] Unfortunately, the existence of this policy in and of itself, does not assist the defendant if they can lead no evidence as to why, several hours after the facility has been opened to the public, the front sidewalk has not been attended to.

In the absence of such an explanation, and in the absence of any work whatsoever being performed, I must conclude that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent damage to the plaintiff. (

d) Did the plaintiff use reasonable care on her own part for her own safety? [ 58 ] I accept the evidence of Mr. Polley when he says that his wife was wearing winter boots at the time of the incident. The use of winter boots in winter is a sensible, reasonable and prudent foot wear choice. I accept the evidence that Mr. Polley assisted his wife by holding onto her as she transited the sidewalk. The fact that she may not have used a walker or a cane at this time, does not, in my view, suggest a lack of prudence or reasonable care.

She sought the assistance of a third party, and I cannot say that the choice to seek her partner’s support is less reasonable than using a cane or a walker. I am satisfied that she acted reasonably and prudently in taking care of

her own safety. In addition, I note that this occupier, unlike other commercial establishments, reasonably expect people to make their appointments. [ 59 ] For these reasons, I conclude that the defendant is negligent and entirely at fault for the plaintiff’s injuries and loss. [ 60 ] The plaintiff has not advanced any claim for special damages. Her claim is limited to general damages for her pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

The plaintiff originally sought $4,000.00 under this head of damage but at the end of trial concluded that this might be high and suggested instead that $2,000.00 would be appropriate. Defence counsel has suggested a more reasonable award would cap at $1,000.00. [ 61 ] The plaintiff did not advance much in the way of evidence to prove their damages, but then, the amount sought is rather nominal. The medical evidence confirms that Mrs. Polley sustained bruising to her 9 th and 10 th rib on the left side of her body. There were no fractures. She did not require any ongoing palliative care.

There is no evidence suggesting that she required any pain medication or anti- inflammatories. She was, according to her husband, sore for two months and perhaps longer. As a direct result of the injury, he had to take over some of the housework such as cleaning floors. There is no evidence that she lost much in the way of day to day amenities and in that regard, I note that Mrs. Polley had other medical conditions that affected her physically and which would, no doubt, coincidentally affect those potential amenities.

I believe that $1,200.00 is a fair damages award to reflect a mild transitory soft tissue like injury which by all accounts had no long term or lasting effects beyond two months. [ 62 ] The plaintiff is entitled to pre-judgment interest on this sum calculated from February 19, 2014 forward which I calculate to be $14.62. [ 63 ] The plaintiff is entitled to costs for issuing of the summons in the sum of $40.00.

If other out of pocket expenses were incurred, other than lawyer-related costs, the plaintiff is free, within the next 30 days to bring application to this Court in writing to fix a date to argue those costs. One would hope however that this may be agreed upon between counsel. P. Demong, J