How have courts found liability for failing to provide a handrail on the left side of the stairs?

In support of that submission, plaintiff’s counsel placed primary reliance on the decision of this court in Horn v. Kmart (1986 B.C.J. No. 2693) In that case, the plaintiff fell down a flight of stairs and through a glass door at the bottom. Murray J, in finding liability, made the following observations: There was no handrail on the left-side of the stairs, although it was called for in the original plans of the building and it had originally been installed but it was later removed for some unknown reason. The absence of such a handrail is a clear breach of the building code in force in the city of Prince George at the time. The other matter which is relevant is the fact that ordinary plate glass was installed in the door through which the plaintiff fell, rather than safety glass. Safety glass is now required by the building code. It was not required when the doors were installed. . . . Were these premises reasonably safe for the plaintiff when they did not provide a handrail to at least give her a chance to arrest her -- or slow down her fall and when they provided ordinary plate glass at the foot of the stairs when safety glass was available as an alternative? I do not think so. The mere fact that the building code did not require safety glass does not relieve the defendant from liability. In my view, it created a hazardous condition when it installed and maintained ordinary plate glass at the foot of this particular flight of stairs. With the thousands of people using those stairs over the years; it was inevitable that some day someone would fall down the stairs and be cut by the glass in the door. If armoured safety glass had been used, the plaintiff would not have suffered the cut to her neck which is the subject of this action. I think, too, that the failure to supply a handrail on the left-hand side of the stairs contributed to the failure of the defendant to make the premises reasonably safe. In the particular circumstances of this case, there is a clear causal connection between the plaintiff's injury to the lack of a handrail.