In what circumstances will the City of Victoria be liable for injuries sustained by a tennis court owner?

In Stynes v. Victoria (City), [1990] B.C.J. No. 244 (B.C.C.A.), a tennis player was injured while playing on a tennis court owned by the City. He was familiar with the tennis court and was aware of some of the deficiencies in the playing surface. At trial, liability was assessed 60% against the City and 40% against the plaintiff. On appeal by the City, the court upheld the trial judgment. The court reviewed the trial judge’s findings respecting the deficiencies in the playing surface and that the plaintiff was aware of some of the defects and the resulting risk of playing on the court. However, the court concluded the knowledge of the plaintiff was not sufficient to prove he willingly accepted the risks as his own risks.

In Philippot v. Murphy, [1987] B.C.J. No. 530 (B.C.C.A.), the plaintiff was injured in the process of lowering a marine ramp owned by the defendants and situated on their property. She claimed the defendants were negligent in failing to warn her of the risk of lowering the ramp when there was a very low tide. The defendants knew the ramp would be very difficult for the plaintiff if she used it when the tide was extremely low. The court held that the basis of the defendants’ liability was the failure to warn. The court stated at p. 4: The fundamental basis of liability for negligence continues to be the creation of a foreseeable risk of harm. That basic principle applies as much to failure to warn as to any other kind of negligence; and is of particular importance in relation to such cases because the danger of applying hindsight rather than foreseeability is particularly serious.