While the Act itself requires that an occupier must act reasonably the law is quite clear that a defendant homeowner is not an insurer of the plaintiff’s safety. In Chapman v. Bullock, [2002] B.C.J. No. 2998, 2002 BCSC 1805, Vickers J. allowed a no evidence motion to succeed. He said at paragraph 8: The fact that the plaintiff was injured on the defendant’s property does not create a presumption of negligence. The defendant is not an insurer of the plaintiff’s safety . . .
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.