The Mahe v. Boulianne court decision was issued by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in Edmonton on December 17, 2008.

In October 1998, Ernest Boulianne hired electrician Michel Mahe to move the electrical wires from a wooden pole in his yard to a new pole which had been installed. As Mr. Mahe cut the remaining wires on the old pole, the pole began vibrate and shake, causing Mr. Mahe to fall 20 feet on to the ground face-first.

Mr. Mahe was transported to the St. Paul hospital. He suffered multiple fractures of the upper thoracic vertebra T1 to T5 including compression fractures of the T3 and T4 vertebra of his spine. He also had two fractured ribs and the muscles to his shoulder blades were torn.

Mr. Mahe hired Alberta injury lawyers and sued Mr. Boulianne for negligence resulting in his injuries. He alleged that Mr. Boulianne was liable for failing to tell him that the old pole was rotten.

At trial, the defence argued that Mr. Mahe was responsible for his own injuries because he agreed to move the wires despite not having any prior experience, he failed to conduct a Hazard assessment before undertaking the work, he failed to make any inquiries about the status of the old pole, and he failed to take adequate measures for his own safety.

After considering all the evidence, the court found that Mr. Boulianne was aware of the danger posed by the old pole and failed to communicate that risk to Mr. Mahe. Thus, the court found that Mr. Boulianne failed in his obligation to see that the Plaintiff was reasonably safe in carrying out the work requested. The court concluded that Mr. Boulianne was 75% responsible for Mahe’s injuries, and Mr. Mahe was himself 25% negligent for the fall.

The court awarded Mr. Mahe the following damages (after 25% reduction):

• $93,750 – General damages
• $300,300 – Damages for past loss of income
• $189,525 – Damages for loss of future earning capacity
• $50,625 – Past and future loss of housekeeping and valuable services
• $93,750 – Pre-judgement interest

The Alberta Court of Appeal found that Mr. Mahe was 60% responsible for the accident because he failed to wear a safety harness. His damages were reduced accordingly.

Do you have a similar case? We can find you a top negligence lawyer in your area.