B.C. Supreme Court dismisses lawsuit over Coquitlam Centre food court fall, finding plaintiff’s lunging caused accident

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has dismissed a negligence lawsuit brought by a man who dislocated his knee after falling in the Coquitlam Centre food court, ruling the accident was caused by his own “deliberate lunges” rather than unsafe construction conditions at the mall.

In a 27-page decision released Nov. 27, Justice Sandra Sukstorf found that 33-year-old Jordan Lee Petrunia failed to prove Coquitlam Centre’s owner, Pensionfund Realty, or its security contractor, Paladin Security Group, created a hazard during ongoing renovations in November 2022.

The court accepted that Petrunia suffered a serious knee injury – but concluded the flooring system and warning signage in the food court were reasonable, safe, and not the cause of the fall.

The incident occurred on Nov. 17, 2022, when Petrunia was waiting in line at Dairy Queen with friends. The food court was undergoing staged renovations, including replacement of its flooring. Temporary plywood transitions covered with carpet and heavy-duty construction tape had been installed, and multiple yellow caution signs warned of “uneven surface” and “wet floor.”

CCTV footage reviewed by the court showed Petrunia “twirling,” shuffling, and nearly bumping into a caution sign shortly before the fall. Moments later, he performed two lunges while speaking with a friend, losing his balance and falling backward out of camera view behind a pillar.

Petrunia alleged his heel caught on tape or on an uneven area where the carpet covered a plywood gap – an explanation that later evolved from “tripping on tape,” to catching on a concealed level change, to his foot depressing into the carpet due to an alleged gap underneath.

But the judge found the video and physical evidence did not support this theory.

Justice Sukstorf accepted evidence from the mall’s contractor, Ledcor Construction, that temporary flooring was intact, secured, and inspected daily. Photographs taken immediately after the fall showed no damage, loose tape, or lifted carpet.

The judge also emphasized the CCTV footage showed that Petrunia was “engaging in deep, deliberate lunges” and shifted his weight in a manner that “produced an immediate loss of balance.”

His friends, who walked normally beside him, did not trip or react to any floor irregularities, and the taped carpet was a standard and visible part of the renovation.

“The flooring system was installed and maintained in accordance with a reasonable and industry-standard safety protocol,” Sukstorf said, adding that any minor irregularities in the flooring were “ordinary risks of daily life” and not inherent hazards.

Under B.C.’s Occupiers’ Liability Act, property owners must take reasonable steps to ensure premises are safe, but are not required to guarantee absolute safety.

Sukstorf found the defendants met that standard. Multiple inspections were performed daily; warning cones were clearly visible in the area; and Petrunia admitted he knew the food court was under construction but did not pay attention.

“The fall was the unfortunate result of his failure to exercise a ‘modicum of awareness’ for his own safety,” Sukstorf stated.

Petrunia also accused Coquitlam Centre and its contractors of failing to preserve additional camera footage and asked the court to draw an adverse inference – essentially suggesting the missing video would have supported his case.

But evidence from the mall’s operations manager showed two of the cameras in the area were newly installed and not yet connected to the recording system, and therefore captured no footage at the time.

Only one operational camera showed the fall clearly, and that footage was preserved.

The judge ruled no spoliation occurred, stating there is “no evidentiary basis to infer intentional destruction of relevant footage.”

Justice Sukstorf concluded the temporary flooring did not pose an objectively unreasonable risk and that Petrunia failed to establish any negligence.

His claim was dismissed in full, and the defendants were awarded costs.