← University
Negligence: The Four Elements Every Business Should Know
0 of 10

A utilities contractor operating in Edmonton had been engaged to complete water main repair work along a commercial street, with the scope of work requiring excavation of a trench running parallel to the roadway and extending partially across the adjacent public sidewalk. The trench measured approximately 1.8 metres deep and 1.2 metres wide, positioned to access underground infrastructure while maintaining vehicular traffic flow on the street itself. The contractor's crew worked through the afternoon and, at approximately 4:30 PM, the site supervisor made the decision to cease operations for the day, with work scheduled to resume the following morning.

Before departing, workers placed 2 orange traffic cones at either end of the excavation and strung a single strand of yellow caution tape across the opening. No rigid barriers surrounded the trench, no warning signage had been posted to alert pedestrians, and no plywood or steel covering was placed over the excavation where it crossed the sidewalk. The site remained in this condition overnight, with the trench fully open and accessible to anyone walking along the pedestrian pathway.

The following morning, a 62-year-old retiree was walking along the sidewalk on a route she had used regularly for years, returning from an early medical appointment. The pedestrian's attention was momentarily drawn to her phone, which displayed directions to a nearby pharmacy, as she approached the construction zone. At approximately 8:45 AM, she stepped directly into the uncovered trench, falling the full depth of the excavation. During the fall, she struck her head against a protruding pipe fitting and landed awkwardly on her left leg and hip.

Emergency services transported the injured pedestrian to hospital, where medical examination revealed a fractured pelvis, a dislocated shoulder, multiple contusions, and a severe concussion. The injuries required surgical intervention followed by an extended course of physiotherapy projected to last approximately 8 months. The pedestrian incurred significant medical expenses, lost the ability to perform activities she had previously enjoyed, and experienced ongoing pain and mobility limitations.

The injured pedestrian now seeks compensation from the contractor, alleging that the failure to properly secure the excavation site constituted negligence. The contractor's liability insurer has retained counsel to defend the claim. Central to the dispute are questions about what obligations the contractor owed to pedestrians using the adjacent sidewalk, whether the precautions taken before leaving the site met the standard of care expected of a reasonable contractor in similar circumstances, whether the contractor's conduct actually caused the injuries sustained, what categories of loss are compensable, and whether the pedestrian's own conduct in using her phone while walking should reduce or eliminate any recovery.

Damages: What the Plaintiff Can Recover in a Negligence Claim

Damages represent the culmination of a negligence claim, the point at which the legal system attempts to translate harm into monetary compensation. For business owners, sole proprietors, and non-profit operators across Canada, understanding damages is not merely an academic exercise but a practical necessity. When negligence occurs and causes harm, the law provides a mechanism for the injured party to recover losses. This recovery, expressed in damages, serves both compensatory and, in limited circumstances, punitive purposes. The fundamental principle underlying damages in Canadian negligence law is restoration: the goal is to place the plaintiff, as nearly as possible, in the position they would have occupied had the negligence never occurred. This principle, sometimes called the principle of restitutio in integrum, guides courts throughout common law provinces including British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and the Atlantic provinces. Quebec, operating under its civil law framework through the Civil Code of Quebec, approaches damages through articles dealing with civil liability, but the compensatory objective remains largely parallel. Understanding what a plaintiff can recover, and conversely what your business might be required to pay if found negligent, forms an essential component of risk management for any Canadian enterprise.

The category of compensable damages in negligence claims divides broadly into pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. Pecuniary damages address quantifiable financial losses: medical expenses, lost income, property damage, and other out-of-pocket costs that can be calculated with reasonable precision. Non-pecuniary damages compensate for losses that resist mathematical calculation: pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of amenities. Both categories flow from the same negligent act, but they require different approaches to assessment and proof. Canadian courts have developed sophisticated methods for evaluating each type, and business owners facing claims or seeking to understand their exposure should appreciate how these categories function in practice.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $149 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.