Exam 5: Negligence and Unintentional Torts

Correct Answer:

Verified

Susan, Antoinette and Gloria would sue Arthur and his employer, Gordon's Mall. Arthur would be liable for negligence and the mall vicariously liable for its employee's tort. It is unlikely that Arthur would have sufficient funds to compensate those entitled, but his employer (or employer's insurance) would probably have sufficient funds to do so. Both Susan and Antoinette are considered visitors to the property, and thus are owed the general duties and standard of care expected of a reasonable person. Gloria however is a trespasser. In Ontario, both Susan and Antoinette, by statute, would be owed a duty of reasonable care. A trespasser is owed only minimal care-essentially if one has reason to believe that a trespasser may come onto the property, one should not intentionally set out to endanger the trespasser nor act as if they were not there. One should treat a trespasser with ordinary humanity.
Here, since there was obviously considerable risk to anyone using the door, Arthur should have done more than simply post a sign so carelessly that it could fall down. The reasonable maintenance person would have rendered the door safe by locking it, and by barricading it so that it was clear it should not be used, either with warning tape or a trestle-barrier. He clearly failed to meet the duty of care owed to visitors and this caused their injuries. It is not clear whether Gloria could succeed. If the steps he did take fail to meet the test of common humanity then Gloria could recover damages.