A driver and cyclist, neighbours in a B.C. strata building, faced off in a tribunal dispute after two bicycles were damaged.
According to the tribunal decision, the applicant, GC, said that the respondent, RD, damaged GC’s bikes by hitting them with his car in the strata building’s parade.
The B.C. cyclist claimed $3,200 for the damage caused to his bikes.
RD actually admitted to hitting at least one of the bicycles but said that GC should seek compensation from ICBC, adding that he isn’t personally responsible for any payment.
The tribunal didn’t quite see it that way.
RD told the tribunal that a mechanical issue caused his car to move forward and out of control, and he had to shut off the engine to stop it.
The tribunal noted that in order for RD to be responsible for the bicycle damage, GC had to prove that RD was negligent. GC also had to prove that he was owed a duty of care.
For several reasons, the tribunal found that RD did not act reasonably.
In an email submitted to evidence dated Feb. 26, 2024, RD wrote to GC that his car was “idling too fast and he could not stop.”
He said he cut the ignition and the car “contacted” GC’s bicycle. He added that he didn’t see any damage to the bike but accepted that the damage “became apparent” after GC had a closer look.
RD emailed ICBC on Feb. 28, 2024, writing that his car “struck” the bicycle and that while he didn’t see damage at the time, GC “found otherwise.”
RD was trying to argue that he wasn’t negligent because his car malfunctioned; however, the tribunal wasn’t persuaded that RD was unexpectedly unable to control his vehicle. RD told the tribunal he didn’t have the car serviced until March 4, and the tribunal said it found it likely that he would wait this long to service a vehicle with uncontrollable stopping.
An invoice of the servicing that was provided to the tribunal did not document any mention of uncontrollable motion or failure to stop.
For those reasons, the tribunal found that RD drove “without sufficient care” and was negligent.
GC had to prove why he was owed $3,200. GC provided photos that showed significant damage to both bicycles. He suggested that repair shops said that both bicycles were irreparable, but didn’t provide any evidence to support that claim. The tribunal noted that neither bike was completely crumpled or crushed.
Still, due to finding that RD was negligent, the tribunal found it reasonable for him to pay for half of the claimed damages.
Ultimately, RD was ordered to pay the B.C. cyclist $1,687.50, which included damages and CRT fees, within 30 days of the decision.