2015 QCCQ 3044, 2015 QCCQ 3044

La Mendola c. Société des alcools du Québec 2015 QCCQ 3044 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL CIVIL Division No: 500-22-190714-124 DATE: April 17, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ EUPLIO LA MENDOLA Plaintiff v.

SOCIÉTÉ DES ALCOOLS DU QUÉBEC Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff is suing defendant, the Société des Alcools du Québec ("S.A.Q."), in damages, after falling on its property. THE FACTS [ 2 ] On March 27, 2009, after making purchases at the S.A.Q., plaintiff fell outside the store, more particularly, on the walkway pictured in exhibit P-1.

Plaintiff alleges that he "tripped on the cement" due to an alleged one inch (maximum) difference between the ridged and non-ridged portions of the walkway (exhibit P-1). [ 3 ] When he fell to the ground, plaintiff cut his left hand on a bottle of wine which he dropped. [ 4 ] The injury sustained and medical treatment received are described in the medical records filed into the court record. [ 5 ] Plaintiff, who is a hairdresser, claims that he was unable to work for "3 full months" due to his injury. [ 6 ] The damages claimed are described as follows, in par. 15 of the introductory motion: « 15.

Comme faute directe et immédiate dudit accident, le Demandeur a subi les dommages personnels suivants:

a) Dommages pécuniaires : - Incapacité totale temporaire: 6 mois x 2,083.33 = 12,500.00 $ - Incapacité partielle temporaire (6 mois X 50%) = 6,250.00 $ - Incapacité partielle permanente 2% 20,000.00

b) Dommages non pécuniaires : - Douleurs, souffrances et inconvénients 7,000.00 Total 45,750.00 $ [ 7 ] Plaintiff also filed a medical expertise. The parties admitted the following 3 paragraphs of said expertise: « Une investigation radiologique a été effectuée le 9 avril 2009 montrant une fracture longitudinale comminutive et intra-articulaire de la dernière phalange du 4 e doigt, pas de fracture au 3 e doigt. On notait aussi un aspect ostéopénique des structures osseuses radiographiées. On notait des petites irrégularités corticales au niveau de la face palmaire de la touffe des dernières phalanges des 3 e et 5 e doigts, mais

qui ne semblaient pas en rapport avec le traumatisme récent. Les rapports médicaux se sont poursuivis. On faisait état d'une fracture ouverte. L'accident était survenu le 27 mars 2009 selon les notes médicales. D'ailleurs, la requête introductive d'instance fait état que le 27 mars 2009, à 16 h 00, le patient se rend à une succursale de la SAQ sur le boulevard St-Michel. Le patient aurait trébuché sur une dalle de béton avec une dénivellation d'environ 1 pouce à cause du dégel. Notons que le patient a été traité à l'Hôpital Fleury. […] Jacques E. Des Marchais, M.D., FRCSC Chirurgien orthopédiste, M.Sc. M.A. (Ed).

FAAOS Membre de la Société des médecins experts du Québec » [ 8 ] The parties also admitted the following: « 1 - Incapacité totale temporaire 3 mois 2 - Incapacité partielle temporaire 1 mois 3 - Incapacité partielle permanente 1 % » (written admissions of April 2, 2015) [ 9 ] In addition to plaintiff's testimony, the Court heard the testimony of Sivanjali Sivaratnam, manager of the branch in question, at the time of the accident. [ 10 ] Sivaratnam testified in a most credible and convincing fashion. [ 11 ] What transpires from the witness' testimony and what is most important to underline, is that the walkway in question was in a perfect state of maintenance and repair at the time of plaintiff's fall.

It was a sunny day, and the area was clear and dry. Furthermore, there was no indentation between the ridged and non-ridged portions of the walkway, as suggested by plaintiff. There was a narrow space between the two, that could not accommodate anything thicker than a stiletto heel. "Tout semblait correct et en bon état", declared the witness. She added that the area was "dégagé et sécuritaire", and that there was no "bris de dalle". [ 12 ] Sivaratnam also confirmed that no one else had fallen in this location, contrary to what plaintiff alleged.

THE LAW [ 13 ] Plaintiff had the burden of proving fault, damages and a causal link between the two, according to the preponderance of evidence (arts. 2803 and 2804 C.C.Q. ). [ 14 ] He did not succeed in this regard. [ 15 ] Au contraire , the preponderance of evidence clearly shows that defendant meticulously maintained the property, in a prudent and diligent manner, and in accordance with the rules of safety. [ 16 ] There is no evidence that the area was unsafe or dangerous. Sivaratnam clearly contradicted plaintiff, who was far vaguer in his testimony.

The pictures filed as exhibit P-1 certainly do not support plaintiff's allegations. In fact, what the Court sees in those pictures, is a well-maintained flat surface of uniform height, the whole as described by Sivaratnam.

Furthermore, plaintiff did not present any expert evidence to demonstrate that the walkway was not safe or properly constructed. [ 17 ] The fact that plaintiff tripped and fell, while holding 2 or 3 bottles of wine in his hands, while an unfortunate event, does not in and of itself prove fault on defendant's part. [ 18 ] There was no construction defect or want of repairs. [ 19 ] Furthermore, plaintiff did not present preponderant evidence that a trap existed, meaning:

a) an intrinsically dangerous situation;

b) a hidden rather than apparent danger; and

c) a connotation of abnormality and surprise. [1] [ 20 ] Given the absence of fault, there is no need to address the issue of damages. [ 21 ] Finally, let it be known that, at trial, defendant agreed to forgo judicial costs, in the event the suit would be dismissed. WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES plaintiff's introductory motion, without costs. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q.

Me Jean-Paul Gagnon Lawyer for plaintiff Me Nicolas Angers GARON DURAND ANGERS Lawyers for defendant Date of hearing: April 2, 2015