Vancouver Surrey Slip and Fall Lawyers 1-877-602-9900 protect you when you slip and fall.
Top Vancouver Surrey Slip and Fall lawyers know many Vancouver residents are injured yearly in slip in fall accidents. If you slip and fall on another person’s property, that property owner may be liable for the injuries sustained.Vancouver Surrey Slip and Fall lawyers explain that Property owners have a duty to make sure that the property is kept reasonably safeguarded and free from danger. Vancouver slip and fall injuries can happen anywhere, but they occur commonly on wet floors, wet surfaces, and on icy sidewalks and driveways.
Be Alert For Hazards Warn Vancouver Surrey Slip and Fall lawyers
Vancouver Surrey slip and fall lawyers see accidents caused by produce aisles covered with slick squashed fruit, drink aisles with spilled liquids, ice outside the doors to a store and on sidewalks, uneven sidewalks stairs broken railings,all pose potential dangers. Vancouver Slip and fall injuries can also result from shaky stairs, loose objects on the ground, or other unexpected dangers. Vancouver slip and falls can be very serious, resulting in fractured bones, ligament damage and even severe brain injuries.
Vancouver Surrey Slip and Fall Lawyers
If you have suffered a Vancouver slip and fall injury, please contact a personal injury lawyer at MacLean Law immediately at any of our 5 offices across BC in Vancouver, Kelowna, Fort St John, Surrey or Richmond. We meet with you for free and do not get paid until you do at the end of your case.
In the case (Foley v. Imperial Oil Limited) the plaintiff suffered a slip and fall injury resulting in a dislocated knee cap. The plaintiff slipped on ice and fell at the exit to the car wash at a North Vancouver Esso service station, which is owned and operated by the defendant, Imperial Oil Limited.
Mr. Justice MacKenzie awarded $40,000 in non pecuniary damages for the injury and stated the following:
 The defendants maintained no regular patrol for ice, but left the frequency of patrol for ice to the employees. Mr. Morrow testified that when he did patrol, he occasionally found ice, and then he would apply fresh salt. So the presence of ice would move him to reapply salt. This indicates either that he was not salting enough, or the defendants were not sufficiently addressing the problem. Both Mr. Morrow and Mr. Christian knew that dripping water from cars would wash the salt away.
 The plaintiff initially required crutches because he could not bear his weight. He also used a brace afterward, and tapered off his use of both the crutches and brace. The evidence as to how long he used both varies somewhat, but is simply a matter of inaccurate recording or memory, and not the plaintiff’s dishonesty.
 The damages awarded in each case are specific to the particular facts. In this case, the plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer chronic pain and loss of enjoyment of life. His condition is likely to remain stable, although there is a risk that he may develop post-traumatic arthritis in the future, which could have further negative impact on his daily activities.
 Based on my findings and upon reviewing the cases, I find an award of non-pecuniary damages of $40,000 is appropriate.
Vancouver Surrey Slip and Fall Lawyers Discuss Appeal Of Trial Judgment
On appeal the test for what the injured person and the property owner was explained was explained:
 I would also observe that while the burden of proof is with the plaintiff to establish liability by demonstrating a breach of the standard of care under s. 3 of the Act, the following comments of Madam Justice Southin in Kayser, albeit in the concurring minority, offer some light on why an occupier might lead evidence of a reasonable scheme of maintenance to address a known danger on its premises:
 The care which an occupier must take, therefore, will differ according to the nature and use of the premises. Hence, the line of cases in which, although the activities carried on the premises may be hazardous, the occupier has been able to refute a prima facie case of breach by showing it had put into operation a reasonable scheme of maintenance and that scheme has been carried out.…
 However one characterizes a plaintiff’s argument in a slip and fall case arising from, let us say, a squashed banana on the floor, the presence of the banana comes very close to “res ipsa loquitur”. It then falls upon the occupier to show that it did what was reasonable to protect those who come on its premises from the common hazards of grocery stores.
 It is always a very nice question how much evidence the occupier must adduce to overcome what is, in fact, an evidentiary presumption of breach of duty, in part because the evidence, not only of the scheme, but also of its proper operation, is peculiarly within the knowledge of the occupier.
 In “slip and fall” cases involving the reasonableness of a maintenance program, while the burden of proof rests with a plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant breached the relevant standard of care, there remains an evidentiary burden on the defendant to rebut any reasonable inferences that might be drawn from the evidence as to whether the defendant has taken reasonable care, in the circumstances, to safeguard the plaintiff who enters onto its property.