What is the extent of liability for moisture on the floor of a hospital corridor?

Turning to the case before me, the care given to the hospital corridors has been recorded supra. Likewise, mention has been made of the procedure followed after 3:30 p.m. I am of the view that the defendant is subject to no criticism in this regard. That is to say, considering all factors including the size of the operation, a reasonable system of cleanliness, safety and inspection was maintained. A finding is warranted that the moisture on the floor was not of long standing. Also its amount can be considered as minute. The plaintiff, unknown to her, travelled safely through or around it on her way to the telephone. Her own description of what she saw on her return indicates a small quantity — “little bits” she called the spots and later she described them as “the size of a quarter maybe”. Based upon these facts it is my conclusion that under normal circumstances, the defendant, through its employees, was not in a position where it ought to have known of the spots of moisture on the floor. Finding the opposite on these facts would, in my opinion, require the applicable law to create a liability which Disbery J. in Joubert v. Davidner, supra, expressly emphasized is not there when he said (61 W.W.R. 402 at 408): “the law does not place upon invitors the greater liability of being insurers or guarantors of the safety of their invitees when upon their premises”.