A pedestrian who tripped over a fallen restaurant sign couldn't recover damages just by proving that the business owned it. In Moghaddam v. Khaghan Restaurant Ltd., 2026 BCCRT 1494, the Civil Resolution Tribunal accepted that a restaurant owes reasonable care to people passing its advertising sign, but dismissed a $5,000 personal injury claim because a breach of that duty hadn't been established.
Amir Moghaddam said he fell over a metal sandwich board on a public sidewalk outside the restaurant at about 5:40 pm on December 18, 2024. He described a dark, poorly lit area and injuries to several parts of his body. The restaurant disputed negligence and said the sign would have been visible even lying on the ground. Video recorded after the incident showed a fairly substantial framed sign beside the entrance to a strip mall parking lot. The Tribunal found the street was brightly lit, the sign had contrasting lettering and it appeared stable when an employee stood it upright.
The distinction between public space and business premises shaped the law the Tribunal applied. Although the parties referred to British Columbia's Occupiers Liability Act, the fall occurred on the public sidewalk, outside the restaurant's premises. The Tribunal therefore examined negligence at common law, asking whether there was a duty, a failure to meet reasonable care, a foreseeable loss and a causal connection. A duty existed, but a business wasn't obliged to make its sign impossible to topple. On the evidence, reasonable care meant putting it out during the day, retrieving it at closing and righting it within a reasonable time if someone reported that it had fallen. Nothing showed how the sign came down, how long it had been there or whether staff had ignored a warning. There was no proof that the restaurant failed to meet that standard.
The evidentiary limits also mattered. Some speech in the videos was not translated into English, so the Tribunal did not consider those portions under its evidence rule. Providing a witness's phone number in submissions didn't oblige the Tribunal to contact the person or delay the written proceeding to obtain a statement. On the available record, Moghaddam hadn't proven negligence. His entire claim was dismissed, and neither side received an order for fees or expenses.
This wasn't a finding that restaurants have no responsibility for sidewalk advertising or that a fallen sign can never support a claim. It was a finding about proof in this particular case. Businesses should be able to explain how signs are placed and attended to, while a claimant alleging negligent maintenance needs evidence of the hazard's origin or duration rather than relying on the accident alone.