Lawyer injured in Hamilton courthouse fall loses lawsuit against building’s owner, cleaner

A Hamilton lawyer who tore his hamstring after slipping on a slightly wet floor at the John Sopinka Courthouse seven years ago has lost a lawsuit against the building's owners and cleaners, who he alleged were negligent by not responding to the spill quickly enough.

Derek Martin, a criminal defence attorney with a practice on John Street, claimed the owner and cleaner of the downtown courthouse - Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation and Bee-Clean Building Maintenance - breached the Occupiers' Liability Act when they failed to place sufficient warning signs around the small amount of water he slipped on in July 2015.

But Justice Michael Valente ruled earlier this month it was in fact Martin who was negligent in the fall because the shoes he chose to wear on that rainy summer day bore partially worn soles.

According to an agreed statement of facts heard over a four-day trial in February, Martin was holding a cup of coffee in his left hand and a briefcase in his right before he slipped near a first-floor wicket and screamed" in pain.

Since it had rained on July 14, 2015, a Bee-Clean day porter placed wet floor signs on all seven floors at John Sopinka, including six on the first floor, the agreed facts state.

There was no signage around the small volume of water where Martin fell, however, which court heard was equivalent to that of a melted ice cube or the size of quarter" - enough to be cleaned with three paper towels. It had accumulated from the wet umbrella of a courthouse visitor.

At issue for Valente during trial were two broad questions: Did the defendants breach the standard of care as established by the Occupiers' Liability Act, or was Martin contributorily negligent?

The judge ruled in favour of the latter.

While the act mandates that John Sopinka deploy a system of constant safety surveillance, the standard is not one of perfection," Valente wrote, and doesn't require every possible danger be eliminated.

Further, because the spill was of such a small amount - and the actions of the cleaners, by way of wet floor signs placed throughout the courthouse and mats installed at entrances, were vigilant enough - it was very doubtful" Martin's fall could've been prevented, Valente wrote.

I would add that Martin must accept some personal responsibility for his unfortunate injury."

Court heard on the date of the fall, Martin's footwear - a pair of Rockport weatherproof work shoes - had soles that were approximately 30 per cent worn.

Martin testified he never had any problems with the shoes' grip and had never slipped in them before, but admitted the soles were worn, smooth and not gritty." He also could not recall whether there were industrial mats - typically placed at all three courthouse entrances for the public to wipe their feet when it's raining - inside the revolving entry doors off Main Street East that he walked through.

But testimony from a Bee-Clean supervisor indicated it would be impossible for any visitor using any of the three public entrances" into John Sopinka in July 2015 not to walk on mats," Valente wrote.

What's more: Immediately prior to the incident, at least six people walked by the area where Martin fell and didn't slip, meaning the spill was not perceptible" to cleaners or visitors, according to the decision.

Valente said that to consider Martin's fall as preventable would be equivalent to finding the owner and cleaner of the courthouse as insurer(s) to all slips and falls."

I find that because Martin chose to wear the shoes with partially worn soles, his actions constitute negligence, which contributed in part to his injuries," he wrote.

Martin has been ordered to pay costs - the sum of which will be determined within the next month - to the defendants.

Sebastian Bron is a reporter at The Spectator. sbron@thespec.com