BC driver blames parking company in legal fight over roof damage

A BC driver who drove a rental van into a parkade that suffered damage to its roof brought a legal fight against Diamond Parking, a BC-based company.

Carmen Buchmann claimed $4,004.85 in expenses for damage to her rental van’s roof.

Buchmann claimed that Diamond Parking was negligent and didn’t ensure the parkade’s safety. Diamond Parking denied negligence in the case, saying that Buchmann’s damage was her fault.

Here’s what the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal determined in a publicly posted decision.

You might also like:
• BC resident sues strata after her parking stall was rendered obsolete
• Petty parking: Restaurant visitor sues after his car was towed from private parking spot
• Vancouver condo owners sue their strata over narrow parking stall
• Unknown liquid in parking lot leads to legal fight against BC developer

The incident at the centre of the tribunal case occurred on December 2, 2022, when Buchmann drove her rented cargo van into a Diamond Parking parkade.

Near the entrance, the tribunal states that there was a clearance sign signalling that the max clearance was 1.83 metres. As Buchmann travelled into the parkade’s upper deck, the roof of the cargo van hit a bulkhead while riding up an incline ramp.

Her cargo van’s roof was damaged near the mid to rear driver’s side.

Buchmann claims that even before she entered the parkade, she ensured the van would easily pass under the height clearance sign. She told the tribunal that as she navigated the parkade, “she was very cautious” and took steps to confirm she had enough clearance. Buchmann said she was surprised when her van hit the bulkhead, adding that a large rental car sign hid the bulkhead.

Her claim of $4,004.85 included vehicle damages and $250 for time, effort and legal consult.

Buchmann provided some photographs for evidence of her claims, which the tribunal did not necessarily trust.

“The photographs were not taken at the same angle, and height reference markings are not visible. So, I find I cannot conclude from these photographs whether either height clearance sign is hung at a particular height,” the tribunal member overseeing the decision said.

Diamond offered its own photographs, including pictures of vans of the same make and model as Buchmann’s.

Buchmann’s claims were not persuasive to the tribunal, which dismissed them because she could not prove that Diamond Parking was negligent.