Winners store not liable for nail polish spilled on customer’s clothes, B.C. tribunal rules

(AndreyCherkasov/iStockphoto/Getty Images via CNN Newsource)

The operator of a Winners department store does not have to pay to replace a customer’s clothes after red nail polish spilled on them while she was shopping, the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal has ruled.

The shopper claimed $1,050 for the cost of her shoes, pants and socks, which she said were ruined by the nail polish, as well as $350 “for her time” from WMI-1 Holding Company, according to the decision issued Tuesday.

She said on Feb. 28, 2024, while browsing in the Winners clearance section, she reached for a cream when an open bottle of red nail polish fell and spilled on her. The applicant did not say how the bottle fell, but the tribunal presumed she accidentally knocked it over.

After asking WMI to compensate her for the damaged clothes, the company offered her $657 “as a gesture of goodwill,” but required the applicant to bring the stained items into the store.

“For personal reasons she does not fully explain, the applicant felt unable to comply with this request,” tribunal member Eric Regehr wrote. “Instead, she offered to video herself throwing the clothes in the garbage. WMI did not accept this alternative.”

The customer filed her CRT claim on April 19, 2024, submitting photos and videos of “noticeable but not large” red stains on the midsoles of her shoes, but none of the other clothing.

READ ALSO:

• B.C. snowstorm was not an ‘Act of God,’ tribunal finds, in ruling on spoiled food delivery
• BC Ferries delay dispute ends with tribunal rejecting couple’s $2.8K claim
• Airline’s negligence resulted in would-be passenger’s denied boarding: B.C. tribunal

Regehr wrote that for the shopper to be entitled to compensation, she would have to prove that WMI is legally responsible for the damage, and it is not enough to simply prove the red nail polish in the store damaged her clothes.

To establish negligence, the applicant would have to prove that WMI owed her a duty of care, breached the standard of a reasonable department store, and caused her a loss, the tribunal member explained.

“The applicant does not say what she thinks WMI did wrong,” the decision reads.

“Someone, presumably another customer, opened the nail polish and did not put the lid back on. I find that WMI does not have a legal obligation to ensure that all nail polishes in its stores always have properly secured lids. I find that would put a standard of perfection on WMI when the law only requires reasonableness.”

Regehr dismissed the customer’s claims, on the basis she did not prove WMI did anything unreasonable in regard to its nail polish display.