How have the courts in B.C. dealt with the issue of improper handrails on a private bridge?

She held that the defendants were in breach of their duty of care to the plaintiff, only in using the "low round log guard rail" and in failing to provide adequate handrails. She said: In the case at bar the situation is different. Here the plaintiff lost his balance and fell as he was trying to sit on the log guard rail. Although there are no building codes or statutory regulations requiring the installation of handrails on a private bridge that was intended to be used for vehicular traffic only, there are recommendations for the installation of railings on bridges accessible to pedestrians. The installation of a railing in this case would have made it more difficult for the plaintiff to have tumbled over and likely would have prevented this tragic accident. The log guard rail was rounded and inherently unstable for sitting. The log border on the bridge was akin to the situation in Niblock v. Pacific National Exhibition where the consumption of alcohol and the low railing combined to create a "springboard effect". The plaintiff's fall and the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were reasonably foreseeable given the low, rounded log border along the bridge which was unsafe having regard to the common use of the bridge as a party location. I conclude that the Jensens failed to take reasonable care in all the circumstances, to ensure that persons using the bridge would be reasonably safe, by failing to provide adequate handrails.