Case Study Analysis: Goody v. Costco Wholesale Corporation Limited

This case study analyzes the legal case of Goody v. Costco Wholesale Corporation Limited, focusing on the Occupiers' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2. The case involves a plaintiff, Diane Goody, who fell in a Costco store and alleges negligence on the part of the defendant. The study outlines the facts, including the weather conditions and the plaintiff's injuries, and identifies the key issues, such as whether Costco fulfilled its duty of care. It examines relevant legal provisions, particularly section 3 of the Occupiers' Liability Act, and discusses precedents like Kerr v. Loblaws Inc. and Waldick et al. v. Malcolm. The court's decision, based on case-based reasoning, found the defendant liable and awarded damages, including general damages, loss of past income, loss of future income, and damages under the Family Law Act. The study highlights the ratio of the case, emphasizing the occupier's responsibility to ensure premises safety and the consequences of failing to meet the standard of care. The analysis underscores the importance of the Occupiers' Liability Act in determining liability in such cases.

Running head: PARALEGAL STUDY
Goody v. Costco Wholesale Corporation Limited, 2009
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1PARALEGAL STUDY
Table of Contents
Purpose:......................................................................................................................................2
Facts:..........................................................................................................................................2
Issues:.........................................................................................................................................3
Relevant legal provisions:..........................................................................................................4
Decision/ analyse/ reasoning:.....................................................................................................5
Ratio:..........................................................................................................................................6
Disposition:................................................................................................................................6
Reference:..................................................................................................................................7

2PARALEGAL STUDY
Purpose:
The main purpose of this case study is to determine whether the defendant of this
case has failed to perform his statutory duty of care to the plaintiff or not.
Facts:
Considering the case brief, following facts are being conceptualised:
 The Plaintiffs are Diane Goody and Richard Goody and the Defendant is Costco
Wholesale Corporation Limited.
 One of the Plaintiffs, Diane Goody is married to the other Plaintiff Richard Goody.
 Mrs. Goody fell as she entered the Costco store located at the Ontario, London.
 Mrs. Goody is retired property assessor and was 53 years of age at the date of
incident.
 During the accident Mrs. Goody was accompanied by Mr. Goody.
 It was snowing and she was with her winter boots, winter glasses and her hand was
empty at the time of accident.
 Her Husband was behind her when she fell forward and she was able to get up and
was seated.
 The incident report was completed by the Costco employee and it was signed and
dated by Mrs. Goody.
 Mrs. Goody was examined at the Headwaters Health Centrein Orangeville.
 Mrs. Goody consulted with numbered of physicians and health care workers regarding
her condition. She also submitted to a Defence medical examination.

3PARALEGAL STUDY
 The Defendant (Costco) states that there were no hazards in the grate at the entrance
of the Costco store which caused the Plaintiff to trip and submits that they took
reasonable care in the situation.
 The Defendant (Costco) denies negligence and submits that the mere fact of this case
is any incident does not give rise to liability of the defendant or the Plaintiffs’
entitlement to damages.
 The Defendant (Costco) further submits that the plaintiffs should have to take proper
care as the weather was adverse in nature.
 Mrs. Goody alleges for non-pecuniary or general damages, special damages, and pre-
judgement interest as a result of the fall she sustained on Sunday, January 26, 2003 at
the premises of the defendant.
Issues:
The main issues of the case are as follows:
 Whether the obligation of Costco to its customers on issue of liability has been
fulfilled or not.
 Whether the Costco has breached the statutory duty of care which were sufficient
to discharge the burden placed on by the Occupiers' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.
O.2 in the circumstances of this case.
 Did the Defendant failed to make the entrance reasonably safe and met the
standard of care which is placed on Occupiers' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2
(QC, 2014). Whether the Plaintiff is eligible for non-pecuniary damages or any monetary
damages in this case or not. Did the Plaintiff fits the “crumbling skull” principle.

4PARALEGAL STUDY
Relevant legal provisions:
The Occupiers' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990 is the main statutory provision in this
case. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has failed to meet all the criteria necessary
under section 3 of the Act. According to section 3 (1), it is the duty of the occupier to take
sufficient care regarding its premises and should take necessary steps to secure the interest of
the customers. The premises they hold must be reasonably safe and occupier has to take
necessary action at all circumstances (van Zeben, 2015). According to section 3 (2), the duty
of care provided for in subsection (1) applies whether the danger is caused by the condition of
the premises or by an activity carried on the premises. In Kerr v. Loblaws Inc., 2007 ONCA
371 ( CanLII), 224 O.A.C. 56, the Court of Justice has observed that the defendant must take
all the possible steps to make the premises safe for the other persons or plaintiffs. The
defendant can lightning the premises, guarding its boundaries or maintain the property on
overall base. The case of Crudo v. Westfair Foods Ltd., 2005 BCSC 320 (CanLII)
determines the facts that the defendant was not liable for the accident since the defendant had
met the requisite standard of care and the reasonable duty of care. However, in context to the
injuries if the defendant was liable for the injuries then the court would have awarded the cost
to the plaintiff. In Cox (Litigation Guardian of) v. Marchen, [2002] O.J. 3669 (S.C.), the
court has observed that if in case of any maintenance failure the defendant had failed to notify
the plaintiff and the plaintiff sustained injury by this, it will amount as breach of duty by the
defendant.
Further, in Wood v Cobourg District General Hospital, (1999), 1999 CanLII
8871 (ON CA), 25 O.A.C. 370, O.J. No. 3889, it has been held that the rate of compensation
will be depended on the sufferings of the plaintiff.

5PARALEGAL STUDY
Decision/ analyze/ reasoning:
The court has decided this case on the basis of precedents and the nature of the
process is known as case-based reasoning particularly. In certain circumstances, the court is
pronouncing judgments based on the previously decided facts and decrees. In the present
case, an allegation regarding the statutory duty of the defendant has been made and
compensation has been asked by the plaintiff. The defendants had defend their case too by
taking the plea of contributory negligence and made certain counter claims in this respect.
Court has taken the analogy of previously decided judgment of Kerr v. Loblaws Inc., Wood
v Cobourg District General Hospital, (1999) and alike judgments. The nature of the
reasoning is retrieve that has been adopted by the court.
A close interpretation of the decision reveals that fact that the occupiers should be
more careful while dealing with the customers and they are required to make all the
precautions for secure the interest of the customers. If they failed to take reasonable steps in
such cases, he will not take the plea for innocence. He has the burden to prove that there is no
laxity regarding pro-activeness from his side. The decision of the case has proved this general
fact.
Ratio:
A close interpretation of the Occupier’s Liability Act reveals that if the provision
of liability of the occupiers is reasonable, he has to compensate the plaintiff. This principle
was established in Waldick et al. v. Malcolm (1991) 125 N.R. 372 (SCC) where the court has
observed that the defendant had failed to show reasonable care to plaintiff and therefore held
liable. In Crudo v. Westfair Foods Ltd., 2005 BCSC 320, it has been established that it is the
duty of the occupier to make the premises safe. In case of any failure in this case, he will be
liable.

6PARALEGAL STUDY
Disposition:
However, the court has given certain judgments in this case and it has followed the
rules and case citations relevant to this case. The learned court was pleased to make its
judgment against the defendant and ordered the defendant to pay the following compensation
to the plaintiff:
 General damage of $50,000 to the plaintiff;
 Damages for loss of past income of $50,736.
 Damages for loss of future income of $67,500.
 Damages for Family Law Act at the rate of $75,000.
However, it has been stated by the court that the defendant can make issues if they
are dissatisfied with the judgment within the time specified by the Court.

7PARALEGAL STUDY
Reference:
QC, M. B. (2014). The Law of Compulsory Purchase and Compensation. Bloomsbury
Publishing.
van Zeben, J. (2015). Establishing a governmental duty of care for climate change mitigation:
will Urgenda turn the tide?. Transnational Environmental Law, 4(2), 339-357.
Wilcox, V. (2016). A Company's right to Damages for Non-pecuniary Loss. Cambridge
University Press.