In the early days of the law, if you were the breadwinner and died because of the wrongful act of another, the family had no recourse in the courts for compensation (“damages”) against the wrongdoer. The saying was that the wrongdoer was better off killing the breadwinner than injuring him or her because, if the breadwinner survived, he or she could launch a lawsuit for damages for injuries suffered. This changed in England, where much of our law originated, in the 1850’s. Today, all of the provinces in Canada have legislation in place permitting family members to launch a lawsuit.
The damages in an action for wrongful death are not for the grief of the loss or pain and suffering but for actual financial losses. When the breadwinner dies, there is great impact on the spouse and children because of the lost financial support. Claiming this loss from the wrongdoer is the primary claim for wrongful death. A car accident is an example of wrongful death. Calculating this loss is an accounting issue and will depend on such things as the age of the deceased breadwinner, the type of employment and benefits, and how young the dependant children are at the time of death.
What about the wrongful death of a woman who was an unpaid homemaker? This was debated by the Supreme Court of Canada as early as the 1880’s when a wife was killed at a railway crossing. The court was divided. Some judges viewed the loss of homemaker services, not as an economic loss, but as a “sentimental loss” not quantifiable in dollars. Surprisingly, given the times, the majority of the court disagreed. Here is what one of them stated: “I must confess myself at a loss to understand how it can be said that the care and management of a household by an industrious, careful, frugal and intelligent woman, or the care and bringing up by a worthy loving mother of a family of children, is not a substantial benefit to the husband and children; or how it can be said that the loss of such a wife and mother is not a substantial injury but merely sentimental, is, to my mind, incomprehensible. And if the injury is substantial, the only mode the law could provide for reimbursing the husband and children is by a pecuniary compensation, and so, in my opinion, in the eye of the law, the injury is a pecuniary injury.” Thus, in 1885, the court ordered that the railway pay the family the, then, large sum of $5,800.
