A driver who said he wasn’t at fault for a car wash collision took ICBC to court.
Thomas Lamberto Eleizegui was the applicant in a small claims case against ICBC.
Eleizegui said that ICBC held him 100% responsible for the accident but claimed that ICBC was incorrect in its analysis.
The car wash collision in question took place in June 2021.
Eleizegui and a third party which the tribunal names “F,” were both at an automated car wash station. Eleizegui was prompted to “back up,” so he reversed the vehicle.
He claimed that because of soap covering his car, he could not see F’s vehicle behind him and reversed into F, hitting his front bumper. Eleizegui also claims that F entered the car wash too early and shouldn’t have been so close to his vehicle.
Eleizegui claimed $5,000 in damages for going to court to contest a violation ticket, various expenses, and for time spent away from his business development projects, family, and friends.
- You might also like:
- Renter sues landlord after being evicted for "tapping his feet to music"
- Heated parking dispute settled in court after a punch or slap causes damage
- "Welcome to Richmond": Geese wreak havoc on residential street (VIDEO)
The tribunal states that he also asked for an order that ICBC retract its decision about fault.
F has a different story. F says they were still at the car wash’s pay machine, waiting in their vehicle, getting ready to pay. F said the Eleizegui reversed into their vehicle instead of going forward into the car wash.
Eleizegui said they waited for F to talk to them, but F never showed up.
The court document states, “Later that night, a police officer attended at the applicant’s home and gave him a violation ticket for ‘unsafe backing.’
After a discussion, the officer “undisputedly struck out the citation for hit and run.”
Eleizegui also appealed the violation in traffic court and told the tribunal that he was found not guilty.
“Although the applicant says the presiding judge found him not guilty, I disagree. The Offence Act Record of Proceedings shows that the applicant plead not guilty, but the case was ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution, which means the case was essentially not being pursued by the prosecution,” said the tribunal member overseeing the case.
In the end, the tribunal member dismissed the claims by Eleizegui because he could not prove any damages.
Follow Channels and Categories