Judge Reginald P. Harris’ decision was posted online Wednesday, summarizing what happened during a five-day hearing earlier this year – and why he found the venue was not negligent and had not breached its contract.
Christine Yu and her now-husband Keith Walkinshaw got married in 2018, at a downtown Vancouver heritage building called The Permanent. The court heard that one of its hallmarks is a massive vault, an original feature of the 1907-built interior.
Harris described the vault’s door as “floor to ceiling in height and approximately five feet wide with external locking mechanisms and hinges” and “impressive and a focal point where several photographs have been taken.”
It was this door, the court heard, that closed on and severed part of the partygoer’s finger. Harris’ ruling found that the door itself was not unsafe, but rather that “a guest or guests dangerously and recklessly interacting with the vault door” was what caused the injury.


THE CLAIM


Yu was seeking an unspecified amount in compensation for the “emotional injury” caused by the accident. While the bride did not see the finger severed, she witnessed the “aftermath.” Harris describes that experience in some detail.
“Ms. Yu was standing a few feet away from the closed vault door. Her back was to the door and she was facing the front of the room when she heard her girlfriend say, ‘I have to leave right now,'” The decision reads.
“Ms. Yu turned to see her close friend holding her hand up and near to her body. Ms. Yu noticed that her friend’s face was white and she heard someone say, ‘You don’t understand it fell on the ground.’ Ms. Yu looked down to see blood and a portion of her friend’s finger on the ground. The severed finger was picked up and transported with the injured party to the hospital.”
Although the reception continued, Yu told the court that the accident and accompanying worry for her friend compromised her ability to enjoy the evening and preoccupied the couple’s other guests.
The couple also claimed the rental contract was breached because the door was unsafe. For that, they also sought an unspecified amount in damages.
B.C.’s Small Claims Court generally deals with cases involving amounts between $5,001 and $35,000.


THE DECISION 


The judge found that there was not sufficient evidence to support the couple’s claim that the door – and therefore the venue as a whole – was unsafe.
Harris considered expert evidence in this regard, as well as evidence about the lead-up to the couple choosing the venue.
The decision notes that an employee testified that specific instructions about the door were provided during one of the site visits, including “that the vault door stays shut, that no one should play with it and that it was Ms. Yu’s responsibility to control her guests.” While Yu said she did not recall these instructions, the judge found the employee’s testimony more reliable.
Harris also said what happened after the accident also did not support the couple’s claim that the venue was unsafe.
“In fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary. In this regard, the reception continued after the accident with the guests drinking, socializing, dancing, eating and making speeches,” he wrote.
“Moreover, the functioning of the vault door was not central to the contract, rather, the central purpose was to rent a venue capable of hosting a wedding reception and despite the accident that is what happened.”
The couple’s claim that the contract was breached because the venue was unsafe was therefore dismissed.
The rental contract itself, the court heard, had a waiver of liability clause, stipulating the couple could not sue the venue for “personal injury, death property damage or any other loss suffered” unless the loss was due to “wilful action or gross negligence.”
While the couple argued that the venue should have posted a sign on the door warning people not to touch it, the judge found a caution sign was not necessary and the venue’s decision not to post one did not constitute “gross negligence.”
The judge found the waiver of liability clause was binding, and therefore dismissed the claim for compensation for emotional injury.