2018 QCCQ 6686, 2018 QCCQ 6686

Adam c. 9181-8120 Quebec Inc. 2018 QCCQ 6686 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF montreal Civil Division No: 500-32-154079-166 DATE: August 17, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE Catherine pilon, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ VALERIE ADAM Plaintiff v. 9181-8120 QUEBEC INC.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Valerie Adam claims $15,000 from 9181-8120 Quebec Inc. (“Quebec Inc.”) following a fall she suffered at a self-serve gas station owned and operated by Quebec Inc. under an Esso banner. [ 2 ] Ms.

Adam argues that the premises of Quebec Inc. were inadequately maintained and were slippery and dangerous which caused her to fall and injure herself. [ 3 ] Quebec Inc. denies that it was negligent in the maintenance of its premises and that it can be held liable in any way if Ms. Adam fell on its property. [ 4 ] At the hearing, pursuant to

article 211 of the Code of Civil Procedure , the Court split the proceeding to first determine whether Quebec Inc. committed a fault for which it should incur liability. At was therefore decided that, as a second phase, if the Court found that Quebec Inc. committed a fault which wholly, or partly, led to Ms. Adam’s fall, it would determine at a subsequent hearing whether this fault caused the prejudice suffered by Ms. Adam, and the value of this prejudice. Question at issue Can Quebec Inc. be held liable for the fall suffered by Ms. Adam? Context [ 5 ] On April 1 st , 2013, at approximately 9:30pm, Ms.

Adam drove to Quebec Inc.’s premises to fill up her car. [ 6 ] Ms. Adam described the weather as a light April day with some snow left on the grass. She could not remember whether it rained that day, but she described the entire area of the gas station ground as wet. She added that it was dark at that time of day, but that the premises were lit and that the ground was not damaged. [ 7 ] She further testified that as she had just pulled up at a gas tank and stepped out of her car, she slipped and fell on her back.

She mentioned that a woman filling her car across from her saw her fall, but did not react other than by “snickering”. [ 8 ] According to her testimony, when she got up after falling, she headed straight to the booth of the gas station attendant. The first thing she told him was “don’t you put salt!”. However, she admitted at the hearing that the ground was not icy. The attendant gave her a number to call to report the incident. [ 9 ] She asked her husband to come meet her and take her home.

She did not call the police or an ambulance. [ 10 ] She later called the number given by the attendant, but could not get an answer. She eventually communicated with Esso customer service to make a complaint. [ 11 ] Elias Bittar, manager of Quebec Inc., testified on its behalf. [ 12 ] Mr. Bittar explained that he was made aware the next day, on April 2, 2013, that a customer had complained about falling.

He visited the premises that same day and did not notice anything in particular on the ground of the area where the gas pumps are located, such as a hole, a crack, or an obstacle. [ 13 ] He further testified that this particular gas station is attended by 600 to 700 customers per day, and that there have been no such

incidents since 2007. Quebec Inc.’s employees have free access to abrasives if the ground is icy, and snow removal services are performed as need be by a third party. He added that Esso is very strict with safety, and that a franchise can be terminated if its operators are negligent and cause an accident. [ 14 ] A number of cameras are installed through the area where the gas pumps are located. One camera is also installed in the paying booth. [ 15 ] Video images of the night of the incident provided by Mr. Bittar were viewed at the hearing. They did not capture Ms.

Adam falling, but do show a number of images of her and the general state of the premises. [ 16 ] The footage shows that the area was well lit and that the ground was dry and free of debris. [ 17 ] Ms. Adam, who confirmed at the hearing her identity on the images captured by the cameras, indicated the area where she fell which is out of camera range. At the moment when she testified having fallen, a woman is seen filling her car and not reacting to seeing something unusual occur. [ 18 ] Another image then shows Ms. Adam walking quickly to the booth.

The video from inside the booth shows her talking to the attendant and prepaying for her gas. She testified that this is when she complained to the attendant that she had just fallen. The video does not show her to be in particular pain, and her white sweater is not dirty. [ 19 ] After filling her car, she is seen back into the booth discussing with the attendant. She then leaves the gas station in her car a few minutes later, contrary to her testimony that her husband came to get her after the incident. Analysis [ 20 ] The fact that Ms.

Adam fell on the premises of Quebec Inc. is not sufficient in itself to lead the Court to conclude that Quebec Inc. is responsible for this fall. The Court must rather determine whether the state of the premises is the cause of the fall, for instance if they were badly maintained or damaged in a way that would constitute a trap. [ 21 ] The probative proof, evidenced by the video footage, is that the gas station ground was dry and free of obstacles, in addition to being well lit. Ms. Adam’s own admission is that she did not step into a hole or trip unto an object.

The Court cannot conclude that Quebec Inc. was negligent in the maintenance of its premises, and that the fall suffered by Ms. Adam was caused by anything other than her own inattention or clumsiness. [ 22 ] In the absence of any fault by Quebec Inc., the action is dismissed. As a result, a hearing on prejudice and causality will not be required. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : DISMISSES the action of the Plaintiff against the Defendant; CONDEMNS the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant the court costs of $ 300 . __________________________________ CATHERINE PILON, j.c.q.

Dates of hearing: February 18, 2018 and April 17, 2018