Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
OWNER BILLED $ 7 K for retailer's delivery damage despite reported LACK OF OVERHEIGHT WARNING 2018/08/30 01:12  
Was it management negligence for reportedly NOT POSTING PRIOR over-height warnings to alert delivery vehicles heading into the exterior loading area ?

That is : whether failure to post warnings of a form of so- called "CONCEALED DANGER" BEFORE a furniture retail delivery truck clipped a ceiling mounted sprinkler within the 3 or 4 feet afterwards warned by suspended signage ?

Or was it some sort of ( destination owner's ) vicarious strict liability akin to elevator vandalism by boozy guests ?

Those anonymous - & highly observant - folks at CondoMadness, have picked up a Global Toronto local news report about a Vaughan owner being pursued for seven months after a sprinkler head was clipped mid January 2018 by a ( new furniture ) delivery van.

Management has even added a bizarre 15 % administrative fee onto a claim against the unit owner that has reached $ 7 K ( but far less than most condo corporations' insurance deductibles. )

Like some sort of a court, management is also quoted by Global TV to be adjudicating liability against the owner not on governance documents but on "purchase agreements".

Is it like inviting a boozy guest ?

Management also cites ( as some sort of vicarious causal connection ) the owner's having reserved an elevator for the delivery of the new furniture, presumably without also warning that the effective clearance was 3 or 4 feet lower than the signage lacking entrance. ( "It's your fault that you failed to warn your guests !" . . . . )

The Global report also :

1 - claims the management company did NOT bill nor pursue the retailer nor delivery driver. and . . .

2 ( POST INCIDENT REMEDIAL – whether or not evidencing management blameworthiness or negligence )

claims that not until AFTER the incident did management erect a height limit sign ( 9’6 inches ) shown suspended at entrance to overhung area and critically appearing 3 or 4 feet below the entrance height .

Not visible at all in the video are any signages on the building’s actual entrance walls.

Bottom Lines

1 - This is a familiar type of self-remedy adjudication that raises the familiar questions about management skillsets. Respectfully, are these the skillsets that should have power to title-slander the equity out of a unit's value ?

2 - Looking wider, would any such remote “mere purchaser” be civilly liable in any way for damage or injury caused by the delivery off site ? eg en route the truck clips a parked car on a city street . . .

3 - Or flip the facts around : Suppose instead, some sort of management negligence had conversely damaged or injured the delivery vehicle and/or its operator ?

Would a duty of civil care ( to the truck driver or truck owner ) then also be owed by the condo corporation to the owner now being targeted by the condo management ?

4 - IN THE REAL WORLD - not the occasionally voodoo world of condos / stratas / Building Schemes etc - IF what management is alleging actually does NOT give rise to civil liability owed to the condo corporation, then what liability could there be to “flow through” onto the unit owner ?

Or onto the furniture retailer / employer ?

Or onto the gas station owner who sold the gas within the truck's tank that day ?

In other words, if it’s arguably maybe NOT even a valid civil liability owed to the condo corporation, it looks shaky to self-adjudicate that there is vicarious “flow through” here onto the unit owner to whom the sofa was being delivered. This ain't "applied condo insurance deductible law"; no condo corp insurance claim was made.

Aug 20/18 Global News “Toronto woman stuck with $7K bill after delivery company damages condo building”
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
OWNER BILLED $ 7 K for retailer's delivery damage ( ? LACK OF OVERHEIGHT WARNING ! ) 2018/08/30 15:14  
And so - apparently without a claim made against & triggering condo corporation insurance for this common element damage - management purports to adjudicate civil liability.

Its a self-adjudication backed by potential title damaging liens.

And so also, howsoever the governance documents may purport to override conventional negligence law, its a vulnerable owner who gets 7 months of targetting.

Was it driver error at all ?

The unit owner gets targetted despite the post-incident remedial / risk warning signage suggesting the lack of such masked a considerably lower clearance than the visible entrance would imply.

Irony : The Ontario Court of Appeal in 2008 ruled that post damage "remedials" - like installing the suspended height warning - are NOT admissions of civil wrongdoing. But that such ARE relevant considerations of the standard of care that should have been taken : eg "the effective obstacle-free height zone is really 3 or 4 feet or more LOWER than what you see when approaching !". ( Think : screen repairs & range-limiters immediately after after a child goes out a Martin Grove highrise window. )

BUT instead here the management "adjudication" leaps upon the unit owner's elevator reservation ! !

Even vicariously - elevator reservation or not - was this owner's marginal role too remote to be causally implicated in this process of voodoo self-adjudication ?

At the very least, looks like would have been a no brainer to quietly let the retailer "ex gratia" just suck up the actual - not inflated - damages as a cost of doing business . . . .
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster