Conrad v. Bernd's Ceramic Tile

Conrad v. Bernd's Ceramic Tile

Adjudicator found the tile failure resulted from a combination of latent structural deficiency (lack of required joist bridging) and substandard tiling technique (inadequate mortar application/seating). The Defendant was liable for the portion of damage attributable to his improper workmanship but not for latent framing defects he had no duty to discover; liability was apportioned at 25% to the Defendant. Total damages were assessed at $16,000 and 25% of that ($4,000) was awarded to the Claimants plus specified costs.

Citation
2016 NSSM 37
Parties
Claimants: Glenn Lewis Conrad and Judith Aileen Conrad; Defendant: Bernd Krebes d.b.a. Bernd’s Ceramic Tile
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Claim for Damages (breach of Contract and Negligence) / Final Decision (reasons Rendered July 6, 2016)
Outcome
Claim partially successful; Defendant held 25% liable for assessed damages.
Legal Topics
Defective Workmanship, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Damages Assessment, Mitigation of Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Tort Negligence Construction Law Building Code Compliance Defective Workmanship Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Liability +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glenn Lewis Conrad and Judith Aileen Conrad

Claimants

Bernd Krebes d.b.a. Bernd’s Ceramic Tile

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Claim for Damages (breach of Contract and Negligence) / Final Decision (reasons Rendered July 6, 2016)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the most probable cause of the tile floor failure?
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is responsible for subfloor/joist deficiencies he did not create or discover
  3. 3 How to apportion liability between parties who each contributed to loss

Ratio Decidendi

Adjudicator found the tile failure resulted from a combination of latent structural deficiency (lack of required joist bridging) and substandard tiling technique (inadequate mortar application/seating). The Defendant was liable for the portion of damage attributable to his improper workmanship but not for latent framing defects he had no duty to discover; liability was apportioned at 25% to the Defendant. Total damages were assessed at $16,000 and 25% of that ($4,000) was awarded to the Claimants plus specified costs.

Court Disposition

Claim partially successful; Defendant held 25% liable for assessed damages.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Claimants $4,000.00 (25% of assessed $16,000.00)
  • Defendant to pay Claimants costs of $199.35 (issuance) and $195.00 (service of subpoena) plus travel costs