Nov 30, 2021 in News Slip and Fall Claims

Slip and Fall Claims: Niagara Falls Slip and Fall Case Ends with Summary Judgement for City

Speed is of the essence in slip and fall claims against cities. Injury victims who intend to file legal action have just ten days to notify the municipality of their intent. But doing something fast and doing something right are not always the same thing. If you’ve been injured in a slip and fall on municipal property, it’s important to immediately contact a personal injury lawyer with experience in this specific field. There are a number of requirements a notice to the city must meet; if it doesn’t your claim may not proceed.

Earlier this month, Law Times reported on the resolution of Fernando v Niagara Falls (City), a slip and fall case in which the city’s request for summary judgement to dismiss the Plaintiff’s case was granted by the Ontario Superior Court. In question was the quality of the notices the plaintiff provided.

The Claim

Fernando v. Niagara Falls (City) stemmed from an incident on April 8, 2017, in which the plaintiff slipped, fell, and broke his humerus bone – a long bone running from the shoulder to the elbow – while walking with his wife, son-in-law, and grandchild in Niagara Falls. The injury required surgery. The plaintiff’s claim alleged that the fall was caused by ice on the sidewalk and roadway; ice that the city negligently failed to clear.

The Notices

The plaintiff and his personal injury lawyer delivered notice of their intent to sue the city on April 18, within the ten-day period for notice of claims against municipalities. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the location of the accident indicated in the notice – “near” a local convention centre – was incorrect. The plaintiff provided a more accurate description of the location in June 2017, but the exact location – which, according to Law Times, turned out to be several hundred metres from the one identified initially – wasn’t determined until January 2018.

Additionally, the city’s legal team noted that neither of the two adult witnesses accompanying the plaintiff, his wife and son-in-law, provided affidavits confirming the plaintiff’s account of events. And, during cross examination, the plaintiff provided vague reasons for this being the case.

The Ruling

Plaintiffs in municipal slip-and-fall cases are permitted to submit notice of their intent to claim late or incomplete provided they have a reasonable explanation for doing so. In Fernando v. Niagara Falls (City), the court found that the plaintiff had no such explanation. While the City of Niagara Falls was unable to prove that the substandard notice created prejudice, the plaintiff was also unable to explain why his companions did not provide affidavits, and why it took nearly a year to pinpoint the exact location of the accident. 

As a result, the Superior Court dismissed the action by way of summary judgement. 

“The court is required to consider all of the circumstances when addressing the issue of reasonable excuse,” the judge’s decision reads, per Law Times. “However, some of them are shrouded in mystery because the extent of the knowledge of two of the plaintiff’s family members who were present is unknown. There is no direct evidence from them. There is not even an account based on information and belief.”

Contact Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers

If you’ve been injured in a municipal slip and fall accident, or any other kind of accident, contact a personal injury lawyer from Neinstein today. Our team has a wealth of experience handling every manner of personal injury claim, including those involving municipal liability.

Reach out today to learn how we can help.

Image: Unsplash