Sprowl v. First Capital
This page is a summary and commentary on a publicly available court decision, written for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship with Azimi Law, regardless of how specific or applicable it may seem to your situation.
This summary may be incomplete, simplified, or not reflect the most current state of the law — the decision may be appealed, distinguished, or overtaken by later rulings. Independently verify this case against the official decision before relying on it. Nothing here guarantees the outcome of any other matter, including yours.
Do not rely on this page to make decisions about your own situation. Consult a licensed lawyer, or contact Azimi Law to discuss your situation directly.
The Facts
In January 2020, Rose Marie Sprowl, then nearly 81, drove to a plaza in Waterloo and slipped on a patch of ice in the parking lot while walking back to her car. She was taken to hospital with a hip fracture and sued the plaza's owner, First Capital (Bridgeport) Corporation, and the company it had hired to maintain the plaza in winter, operating as Clintar Landscape Management. Her claim relied on the Occupiers' Liability Act, which requires an occupier to take reasonable care that people on the premises are reasonably safe. The owner had a written contract with the contractor and received regular reports. The contractor tracked the weather and the evidence was that its inspections were visual checks from its vehicle, without walking the lot to look for ice between parked cars.
What the Court Decided
The court found that both defendants breached the duty in section 3(1) of the Act and made them 100% jointly responsible for her damages. For the contractor, the problem was the way the lot was inspected and treated rather than the weather monitoring or its response. For the owner, the key was section 6(1), which can protect an occupier from a contractor's negligence only if the occupier reasonably chose a competent contractor and took reasonable steps to confirm that the work was properly done. The owner had a sensible contract with inspection and reporting duties, but there was no evidence it had checked the contractor's work, acted on reports or directed anyone to do so. The court found that the defendants' negligence caused the fall and that nothing showed the plaintiff was partly to blame. This summary addresses liability and does not cover the amount of damages.
Property owners often assume that a snow-clearing contract moves the risk to the contractor. This decision shows that an owner who does not follow up on the work can share the full responsibility. For injured people, it is a reminder that both the owner and the contractor can be sued and that a careful look at how the lot was actually inspected can matter.
Does This Affect You?
- ✓You fell on ice or snow in a parking lot, plaza or driveway that is maintained by a contractor.
- ✓The property owner says it cannot be responsible because it hired a professional snow-removal company.
- ✓You are an older adult, or a family member of one, injured in a winter fall and wondering who can be sued.
Key Takeaways
- An owner is not automatically protected by hiring a contractor, because it must also take reasonable steps to check the work.
- Visual drive-by inspections may not be enough where ice can form in spots like between parked cars.
- Records of inspections, reports and what the owner did in response are central evidence in winter slip-and-fall claims.