Судья отказался снизить компенсацию арендодателю, чей дом стал причиной травмы гостя

After appealing to Saskatchewan's highest court, a landlord is still on the hook for more than $50,000 after a tenant's guest slipped on steps. The case, which originates from Prince Albert's Court of King's Bench, revolves around a simple set of facts recounted in the June 30 decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (SKCA). Alice Brunet was visiting her daughter, who was renting a house from Pramilla Chettri — a landlord who owned a number of properties. One morning, Brunet went outside for a smoke in her slippers and slipped on the steps, injuring one of her wrists and a knee. The decision by a three-judge panel states there was no handrail and the five painted steps were covered in dew. "This was not the first time that someone had fallen on those steps," states the decision, written by Justice Georgina Jackson, with Chief Justice Robert Leurer and Justice Meghan McCreary in agreement. The partner of Brunet's daughter had previously fallen and afterward told Chettri he'd build a handrail if she gave him the materials. "Ms. Chettri did not take up that offer," the decision states. She was sued by Brunet, and a Prince Albert judge fixed Brunet's damages at $59,345.47. But the judge also found that Brunet was "contributorily negligent" because of her footwear. So after deducting 15 per cent for that, and adjusting for the amount payable to the Ministry of Health, the judge awarded Brunet $50,385.83 with costs and prejudgment interest. Chettri appealed on a number of grounds, each dismissed by Saskatchewan's highest court. The panel found that the trial judge made no error in finding Chettri liable under what's known as "occupiers’ liability law" or that she qualified as an "occupier" in the case at hand. "That the tenant’s partner believed it was necessary to seek permission to change an exterior feature of the house and the landlord refused is powerful evidence to support the judge’s conclusion that the landlord was in control and, therefore, an occupier with respect to the steps," Jackson wrote. The SKCA judges also found no error in the trial judge's finding that Chettri was obligated to "take reasonable care to prevent damage from unusual danger of which the occupier knows or ought to have known." "A reasonable person would not expect to encounter steps of five or more risers with no handrail or non-slip surfaces," wrote the trial judge. The SKCA panel found no obvious error in the trial judge's conclusion that the steps at issue presented an unusual danger. On appeal, Chettri argued it was necessary for Brunet to prove a handrail would've prevented her from injury. However, the SKCA decision points out that, at trial, the cause of the injury was not disputed. "In light of this, I find no basis upon which the Court can take up this issue," Jackson wrote. Chettri further submitted Brunet was "the author of her own misfortune" and took issue with the 15 per cent the trial judge deducted for Brunet's responsibility. However, the SKCA found "no basis to intervene." The decision notes how the area of law engaged by the case has seen reform throughout Canada except for in Saskatchewan and the territories. "The lack of clarity in the law made a simple matter more complex than it needed to have been," Jackson wrote of the case at hand. Reform has been accomplished through legislation in some provinces. The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal "through judicial decision, rationalized occupiers’ liability," the SKCA decision states. But despite encouragement from academics to follow suit, the SKCA declined to do so at this time for multiple nuanced reasons not covered in this article but explained in the decision, which is publicly available online.