When someone is injured on another person’s property, the case often leads to a single question: did the property owner know about a dangerous condition that caused the injury? Slip and fall and other premises injuries are frequently treated as one-off accidents; however, sometimes concerns about the danger had already been raised by tenants, customers, employees, or others well before the incident.
In BC, property owners have a legal obligation under the Occupiers Liability Act to take reasonable care to identify hazards on their property and address them in a timely way. When there is evidence that complaints were raised and ignored, the analysis shifts from whether the owner should have known about the danger to whether they actually knew and chose to do nothing.
How BC Law Defines a Property Owner’s Duty of Care
The Occupiers Liability Act doesn’t require property owners to ensure a perfect, hazard-free environment for visitors, but it does expect them to take reasonable care to keep their property safe for those on it. In practice, this means property owners are expected to be aware of potential or blatant issues on their property and, within reason, take appropriate steps to address them. Action need not be immediate, though it must be timely and satisfactory given the circumstances. Typical responsibilities include:
- Inspecting the property regularly to identify hazardous conditions before they cause harm
- Repairing dangerous conditions within a reasonable timeframe once they are known
- Posting clear warnings when an issue cannot be corrected right away
What counts as reasonable depends heavily on context. Courts look at a range of factors, including:
- The type of property involved, such as commercial, residential, or public
- Who is expected to be on the property, whether customers, tenants, or others
- The nature of the danger and how serious the potential consequences are
- How foreseeable the resulting harm was
A busy retail space, for example, is held to a different practical standard than a private residential driveway, even though the same general legal duty applies. For someone bringing a premises liability claim, duty of care is the starting point. An injured person generally needs to show:
- The property owner owed them a duty of care
- The owner breached that duty
- The breach caused the injury they suffered
- The injured person incurred damages as a result of the accident
Why Prior Complaints Strengthen a Dangerous Premises Claim
In most premises liability cases, courts draw a distinction between hazards a property owner could not reasonably have known about and those they should have caught. The law does not expect owners to discover and fix every issue the moment it appears. Rather, once a problem is reasonably knowable, the owner must take the time and intention to rectify it.
The moment a complaint is made, whether by a tenant, customer, employee, or anyone else, the property owner or someone acting on their behalf has actual knowledge that a risk exists. There is no longer any question of whether the issue could have been spotted through reasonable inspection, because it was already brought to their attention.
In these situations, the owner can no longer credibly claim the danger was unknown or that the resulting accident was unforeseeable. They had notice, and they had the opportunity to take corrective action before someone was hurt. When that opportunity was ignored or mishandled, the failure is much harder to defend.
What Counts as Evidence of a Known Hazard
Evidence of a known hazard can take many forms, especially since complaints and warnings do not have to be documented in a formal legal document to carry weight in a claim. All that matters here is whether evidence shows or suggests that the property owners or those working on their behalf were put on notice about a danger before the accident occurred. Some common and useful types of evidence include:
- Written complaints submitted to a property owner, manager, business, landlord, or strata council, such as emails, letters, and formal complaint forms
- Documented verbal complaints, such as those recorded in maintenance records, incident reports, or follow-up emails and texts confirming a conversation that took place in person
- Third-party inspection reports from building inspectors, engineers, or insurance assessors that identify the threat
- Municipal bylaw notices, work orders, or compliance letters directing the owner to address a specific condition
- Online reviews and social media posts publicly mentioning the risk, particularly when someone from the property responded to them
- Records of past insurance claims involving similar hazards or injuries on the same property
- Photos or videos taken by others before the injury occurred, especially if they were shared with management or the owner
- Routine inspection failures, such as missed or skipped inspections that should have caught the risk
- Ignored maintenance schedules, including a lack of documentation of regular upkeep
Talk to Stephens & Holman About Your Case
If you were injured on someone else’s property, it is worth speaking with a personal injury lawyer before assuming your case is too difficult to pursue. You do not have to be the person who originally raised the hazard for prior complaints to matter, and in many cases, injured people have no idea that someone else flagged the same danger long before they were hurt. Stephens & Holman can review the circumstances of your injury, identify what evidence may already exist, gather the documentation needed to support your claim, and build a case aimed at recovering fair damages. Contact one of our offices today to schedule a free consultation.