Prevost v. Vetter et al
- Citation
- 2001 BCSC 297
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 22 February 2001
- Posture
- Negligence (personal Injury) / Interlocutory Application Under Rule 18 a to Dismiss; Decision on Application Reserved and Rendered
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 22 February 2001
- Posture
- Negligence (personal Injury) / Interlocutory Application Under Rule 18 a to Dismiss; Decision on Application Reserved and Rendered
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court concluded the Vetters owed a duty of care because the impairment originated on their premises and harm to third parties was reasonably foreseeable, and they breached that duty by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the impaired person from causing harm; accordingly the Rule 18A application to dismiss was denied.
Court disposition
Application under Rule 18A by Gregory and Shari Vetter to dismiss the action denied; court finds they owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and breached it.
Orders
- Application under Rule 18A by Gregory and Shari Vetter to dismiss the action denied
02
Material facts
Parties
Adam Prevost
Plaintiff Counsel: Robert A. ClarkeLinda Prevost
Committee/plaintiffEdward Prevost
Committee/plaintiffDesiree Nicole Vetter
DefendantGregory Adam Vetter
Defendant/third Party Counsel: Darren G. BloisShari Irene Vetter
Defendant/third Party Counsel: Darren G. BloisHer Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada
Defendant/third PartyAttorney General of British Columbia
Defendant/third Party03
Procedural history
Posture
Negligence (personal Injury) / Interlocutory Application Under Rule 18 a to Dismiss; Decision on Application Reserved and Rendered
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Did Gregory and Shari Vetter owe the plaintiff a duty of care to prevent him from coming to harm while off their premises at the hands of a person who became impaired on their premises?
- 02
If so, did the Vetters breach the requisite standard of care?
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants (Gregory and Shari Vetter) argued there was no duty of care to prevent harm off their premises caused by a third party who became impaired on their premises and that the application under Rule 18A to dismiss should succeed for lack of duty/proximity/foreseeability.
- Respondent
- The plaintiff argued the Vetters owed a duty of care because the impairment occurred on their premises and harm to third parties was foreseeable, and that the Vetters breached the requisite standard by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the impaired person from causing harm.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law negligence principles (foreseeability/proximity/policy)
Duty of care in negligence requires foreseeability, proximity and consideration of policy factors.
- 02
Common law principles regarding social host/premises liability
A person who causes or allows impairment on their premises may owe a duty to third parties harmed off-premises if harm is reasonably foreseeable and reasonable preventative steps were not taken.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court concluded the Vetters owed a duty of care because the impairment originated on their premises and harm to third parties was reasonably foreseeable, and they breached that duty by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the impaired person from causing harm; accordingly the Rule 18A application to dismiss was denied.
Court disposition
Application under Rule 18A by Gregory and Shari Vetter to dismiss the action denied; court finds they owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and breached it.
- Application under Rule 18A by Gregory and Shari Vetter to dismiss the action denied
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 22 February 2001
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Judgment· 22 February 2001
2001BCSC0297 Citation: Prevost v. Vetter et al Date: 20010222 2001 BCSC 297 Docket: 23047 Registry: Vernon
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: ADAM PREVOST, A PERSON UNDER A DISABILITY BY HIS COMMITTEE, LINDA PREVOST AND
EDWARD PREVOST
PLAINTIFF AND: DESIREE NICOLE VETTER, GREGORY ADAM VETTER, SHARI IRENE VETTER, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
DEFENDANTS AND: GREGORY ADAM VETTER, SHARI IRENE VETTER,
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA AND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
THIRD PARTIES
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE COULTAS (IN CHAMBERS) Counsel for the Plaintiff: Robert A. Clarke Counsel for Greg and Shari Vetter: Darren G. Blois Date and Place of Hearing: February 7,8,9, 2001 Vernon, BC [1] On February 9, 2001 at Vernon, British Columbia, I reserved my decision on an application brought by the defendants, Gregory and Shari Vetter, under Rule 18A of the Rules of Court to dismiss the action against them. There are two issues for determination: 1. Did Gregory and Shari Vetter owe the plaintiff a duty of care to prevent him from coming to harm while off their premises, at the hands of a person who became impaired on their premises?
2. If so, did the Vetters breach the requisite standard of care? [2] Because the trial date is imminent, I now give cryptic Reasons and shall hand down more extensive Reasons, later. [3] I find Gregory and Shari Vetter did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, Adam Prevost, and that they breached that duty. "G.R.B. Coultas, J." The Honourable Mr. Justice G.R.B. Coultas
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.