Detailed Analysis of Tort Law Case: Funnell v. City of Kamloops

This document presents a detailed analysis of the tort law case William Lloyd Funnell v. City of Kamloops. The case involves Mr. Funnell's claim for injuries sustained from a fall in a swimming pool changing room owned by the City. The plaintiff alleged the City breached its duty of care under the Occupier’s Liability Act. The court found the defendant liable, citing the City’s failure to exercise reasonable care in resurfacing the floor and address previous accidents. The decision highlights the importance of municipalities meeting the standard of care under the Act. The analysis also discusses the significance of the decision for bylaw enforcement, emphasizing building owners' responsibilities to ensure safety and the potential liability of bylaw enforcement agencies when contractors or inspectors fail to uphold building standards. The document includes case citations and references to relevant legal principles and acts.

Running head: TORT LAW
Tort Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1TORT LAW
Table of Contents
Case Citation....................................................................................................................................2
Facts of the Case..............................................................................................................................2
Legal issue.......................................................................................................................................2
Decision...........................................................................................................................................3
Significance of the decision.............................................................................................................3
References........................................................................................................................................4

2TORT LAW
Case Citation
In William Lloyd Funnell v City of Kamloops, British Columbia Supreme Court, [1998]
B.C.J. No. 775, 78 A.C.W.S. (3d) 841, the plaintiff brought legal action against the defendant
and the defendant sought to dismiss the legal action under Rule 18A.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff, Mr. Funnell claimed damages for injuries sustained from falling in the
men’s changing room at pool complex owned by the defendant, (the City of Kamploos or the
City). The floor of the room was repainted two months back and a sand-like substance was
scattered upon the floor to provide grip to the customers as it was for the users of pool. The
plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated its duty of care that it owed to the pool users under
section [3] of the Occupier’s liability Act R.S.B.C. [1996], chapter. 337. The court found the
defendant to be guilty and ordered to pay costs to the plaintiff.
Legal issue
The legal issue that arose in this matter was whether the defendant breached its duty of
exercising standard of care towards the plaintiff while he was within the premises of the
defendant as is required under the Occupier’s Liability Act 1996. As per section 3 of the Act,
any occupier of a premises owe a duty of care at all circumstances towards all the persons,
premises, person’s property and property on the premises of a person as was ruled in Wyong
shire Council v Shirt [1980]. The occupier must undertake all reasonable steps to ensure that
such person or the person’s property is safe while it is present within the premises of the

3TORT LAW
occupier (Knapp, Crystal & Prince, 2016). As per subsection [3(2)] of the Act, such duty of care
must be exercised with respect to:
i. activities on the premises,
ii. condition of the premises, or
iii. conduct of third parties on the premises
Decision
The Court held that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care while resurfacing the
men’s change room floor and failed to ensure safety of the plaintiff and other users who uses
such men’s change room area. The decision of the court was based on the evidences adduced by
the Messrs. Olm who admitted that he lacked expertise in the resurfacing of the swimming pool
and that the inspection of the pool was conducted when it was dry and not wet while the accident
of the plaintiff occurred when the floor was wet.
Further evidences adduced by the employees who believed that the floor was slippery and
that the sand-like substances were unevenly scattered which likely caused the accident. In
addition, the City had a record of previous accidents that occurred due to the same reason, which
establishes that the defendant failed to meet the standard of care under the Act.
The Implication or Significance to Bylaw Enforcement
In regards to the implication or significance of the decision to Bylaw enforcement, it can
be stated that municipalities or local government is liable only where it owes a duty of care to
plaintiff which was breached resulting in causing damages to plaintiff. In Rothfield v Manolakas
[1989], it was ruled building owners must ensure that any construction, resurfacing in this case,

4TORT LAW
does not pose risk to health and safety. However, if building owner or occupier of premises lack
technical knowledge to assess the quality and construction of the building or any part of
premises, it hires a municipal inspector or person who possesses such knowledge to ensure
building standards are fulfilled. Hence, it is expected that such contractors or inspectors would
inspect the construction carefully, and any damage would entitle the bylaw enforcement agencies
liable.

5TORT LAW
References
Knapp, C. L., Crystal, N. M., & Prince, H. G. (2016). Problems in Contract Law: cases and
materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Occupier’s liability Act R.S.B.C. [1996], c. 337
Rothfield v Manolakas [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1259
William Lloyd Funnell v City of Kamloops, British Columbia Supreme Court, [1998] B.C.J. No.
775, 78 A.C.W.S. (3d) 841
Wyong shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12