In civil liability cases involving personal injury, the burden of proof and witness credibility often become pivotal. This was the case in Lamothe c. Beaudoin, rendered on April, 15, 2025, by the Superior Court of Québec, where the plaintiffs—Lamothe and Simon—sought damages following Lamothe’s fall down a staircase in the defendants’ property. Relying on the presumption of liability under article 1467 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.), the plaintiffs argued that the incident stemmed from the property’s partial ruin. Central to the dispute were the interpretation of this presumption, the plaintiffs’ evidentiary burden, and the overall credibility of the testimony presented.
Background
Lamothe had gone to the defendants’ property to perform unpaid painting work as a gesture of thanks for prior assistance. To access the basement workspace, she descended the stairs from the main floor. It was on these stairs that she fell.
The plaintiffs invoked article 1467 C.C.Q., which presumes an owner liable for injuries caused by a “ruin”—even a partial one—resulting from a construction defect or lack of maintenance. Lamothe alleged that a defective step caused her to fall and further claimed that the absence of a code-compliant handrail contributed to the accident.
The Burden of Proof: Probability, Not Possibility
The Court reiterated the three prerequisites under article 1467:
- The defendant is the owner of the immovable.
- The injury stems from the property’s ruin.
- The ruin results from poor maintenance or a construction defect.
While article 1467 C.C.Q provides a presumption of liability, the onus remained on the plaintiffs to establish that the alleged ruin was the probable, not merely possible, cause of the fall.
Importantly, the presumption of liability can be rebutted if the owner demonstrates either force majeure or fault on the victim’s part.
Credibility at Trial
The case ultimately turned on credibility. Lamothe’s testimony was found to be inconsistent and unreliable, particularly when compared to earlier statements she gave during discovery and to the defendants’ insurer. Contradictions appeared regarding her injuries, diagnosis, whether she was holding anything at the time of the fall, and other key details. Conversely, the defendants’ testimony was deemed coherent and uncontested. Unable to convincingly link the fall to a structural defect or missing handrail, the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof. The Court dismissed their claim accordingly.
Takeaway
This decision underscores three critical lessons in civil liability litigation:
- Consistency is key: Pre-trial statements can significantly impact the Court’s assessment of credibility.
- Probability over possibility: Article 1467 C.C.Q requires a clear causal link between the ruin and the injury—not just a speculative one.
- Effective cross-examination matters: It remains one of the most powerful tools to test and challenge the reliability of witness testimony.
