A. The owner knew that the pole posed a hazard and so should have warned the electrician of that hazard.
EXPLANATION
This situation is based on a real case from Alberta. The farm owner had hired his neighbour, who was a certified journeyman electrician with nearly 20 years’ experience, to do electrical work. The neighbour suffered serious injuries when he fell while removing wires from a pole. He sued the farm owner under Alberta’s Occupiers’ Liability Act for, among other things, failing to warn him of the condition of the old wooden pole.
The court explained that, under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, a property owner has a duty to every visitor to take reasonable care, under the circumstances, to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the property for the purpose for which he was invited. Here, the farm owner invited the electrician to the property to move electrical wires from an old wooden pole to a new pole. There was plenty of evidence that the owner was aware of the risk the old pole posed, noted the court. Yet he never told the electrician about the pole’s fragile condition. Thus, the court concluded that the owner had failed in his obligation to see that the electrician was reasonably safe and ordered him to pay the electrician $634,200 in damages.
WHY WRONG ANSWERS ARE WRONG
B is wrong because even if the owner violated the OHS Act, the electrician wouldn’t be able to sue him under that law for his injuries. For one thing, it’s unlikely that the owner would be considered the electrician’s “employer” under the OHS Act. But even if the owner was the electrician’s employer, the failure to protect him might result in a safety violation but not a lawsuit for damages. That’s because the OHS laws don’t allow injured workers to sue their employers for workplace injuries. Thus, the owner wouldn’t be liable in a civil lawsuit under the OHS Act for the electrician’s injuries.
C is wrong because negligence by the electrician might reduce his damages but it won’t get the owner off the hook. Explanation: In Canada, courts consider whether an injured party’s actions contributed to his own injuries. If so, the court will apportion the negligence between the injured party and the person he’s suing and reduce the damages accordingly. And if the injured party is more negligent, he might get no damages at all. Here, even though the electrician negligently contributed to his own injuries by not thoroughly examining the old pole before removing the wires, the owner was more negligent because he knew that the old pole was dangerous but didn’t bother to warn the electrician about this hazard.
D is wrong because the farm owner has a duty to ensure that all visitors to the property are reasonably safe. Yes, the electrician is a professional and so should have asked about the pole’s condition and conducted a hazard assessment of the pole himself. But his status as a certified electrician doesn’t eliminate the farm owner’s duty to warn him that the old pole was rotted at the base and unstable.
SHOW YOUR LAWYER
Mahe v. Boulianne, [2008] ABQB 680 (CanLII), Dec. 17, 2008
Loading ...
