A recent court case involved an individual who stumbled while descending a flight of stairs. The individual grasped at the handrail, however, because it was too wide, the handrail did not allow a good grip and the individual fell down the stairs. Personal injuries were suffered, and the property owners were sued for damages. This was in spite of the fact that the handrail did meet the code when the building was constructed. The OBC further specifies where these guards are required, what their height should be, how much force they should be able to resist, that they be able to resist climbing, etc.
Many cases involving falls over guards at vacation properties involve the use of alcohol.
However, if the height of the guard can be shown to be inadequate according to the requirements of the code, the property owner would likely be held liable to some degree, despite the fact that the main contributing factor may have been the amount of alcohol consumed by the injured party. Under joint and several liability, the property owner may pay the majority of the claim even if the plaintiff has a greater degree of liability. A simple retaining wall at the back of a residential property requires a guard if the difference in elevation exceeds 24 inches. The property owner may be fully aware of the drop in elevation, but a visitor at a party, perhaps mildly inebriated, could not possibly know of the dangers in the backyard and could easily suffer a personal injury. As with handrails, a building audit can determine if the guards that are present are adequate, and if all areas requiring guards are suitably protected.