With the summer season approaching the number of swimming pool accidents rise, no surprise. In the case of Pioneer Family Pools (Hamilton) Inc. v. Walford [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 599, leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Walford was a case where the Plaintiff had purchased a slide for their swimming pool. Walford consulted with the pool company employees as to whether it was okay to install the slide and whether it was safe. The pool employees advised her that it was fine. The day after the installation Walford’s, fifteen year old daughter went down the slide and hit her head on the bottom of the pool. She was rendered a quadriplegic and now requires care for the rest of life.
The trial Judge dismissed the Plaintiff’s action against all Defendant’s. The trial Judge based his decision on the fact that the pool company employees had been truthful and not misleading because the slide was safe to use if certain conditions were followed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, Walford v. Pioneer Family Pools (Hamilton) Inc., (2007) 87 O.R. 3d 281 (Ont. C.A.) allowed the Plaintiff’s appeal in a 2 to 1 decision and reversed the trial Judge’s findings. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge, “had made an error in finding no breach of duty by Pioneer (pool company) for failure to warn and negligent misrepresentation. It further held that the trial judge had misapplied the standard of care.”
Finally, the Court found that Pioneer’s negligence caused the Plaintiff’s injuries due to the fact that Walford had testified at trial that, “she would not have used the slide if Pioneer had warned her of the dangers of using the slide, ” Furthermore, that the pool company, “was an expert in it’s field” and that Walford, “relied on it’s expertise.” The pool employees, “failed to give her adequate warning about the dangers of her new slide.”
This case has expanded possible Defendants in swimming pool cases. While traditionally a cause of action would typically be pursuant to the Occupiers Liability Act. In this case the Plaintiff was successful in her cause of action against the Defenant’s for shoddy advice.
