← 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.

Defences to Negligence: Contributory Negligence, Voluntary Assumption of Risk

Negligence claims do not always result in full liability for the defendant. Canadian law recognizes that plaintiffs may bear some responsibility for their own injuries, or that they may have knowingly accepted certain risks before harm occurred. These defences—contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk—serve as critical counterweights in the negligence framework, ensuring that liability is allocated fairly between parties based on their respective conduct. For business owners, sole proprietors, and non-profit operators across Canada, understanding these defences is essential not only for defending against potential claims but also for structuring operations, documentation, and risk management practices that can reduce exposure when incidents occur.

The concept of contributory negligence reflects a fundamental principle of fairness in Canadian tort law: a person who contributes to their own harm should not recover full compensation from another party. Historically, under the common law, any fault on the part of the plaintiff—however minor—completely barred recovery. This harsh rule has been abolished across Canada through legislation that allows courts to apportion damages based on each party's degree of fault. In British Columbia, the Negligence Act governs this apportionment. Alberta operates under the Contributory Negligence Act. Saskatchewan has the Contributory Negligence Act as well. Ontario's Negligence Act serves the same function. As of the date of authorship, these statutes share a common approach: where both the plaintiff and defendant are at fault, damages are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's share of responsibility for their injuries. If a court finds that the plaintiff was forty percent responsible for an accident, the damages award is reduced by forty percent accordingly. This proportionate approach applies across most common law provinces, including Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador, where similar legislative frameworks exist.

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.