2 total
A prospective employer did not breach its duty of care when a job applicant injured her back demonstrating her ability to lift a trailer.
The plaintiffs brought an action for damages after Ms. Armstrong, a prospective employee, suffered an L4 vertebrae burst fracture while demonstrating her ability to hitch a U-Haul trailer during a job interview at the defendants' garage.
The trial proceeded on the issue of liability only.
The court found that the defendants owed a duty of care to Ms. Armstrong, both as occupiers of the premises under the Occupiers’ Liability Act and as a quasi-employer.
However, the court concluded that the defendants did not breach the standard of care, as the injury was not reasonably foreseeable given the circumstances, including Ms. Armstrong's assurances of her lifting capabilities and the lack of evidence of industry standards or obvious negligence.
The action was dismissed.
Summary judgment was granted dismissing a slip and fall claim because the plaintiff failed to provide direct evidence to support her expert's theory.
The plaintiff sued the defendants for negligence and breach of the Occupiers' Liability Act after falling in a grocery store parking lot.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the action.
The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.
The plaintiff's expert opinion regarding an unexpected curb height lacked factual foundation because the plaintiff did not provide her own affidavit evidence to support the expert's assumptions about her expectations.
The court emphasized the plaintiff's failure to "lead trump" by not filing direct evidence and found the curb was not a hazard.