Man points finger at West Vancouver for car damage, ends up taking the blame
A man who suffered car damage while driving on a road maintained by the District of West Vancouver blamed the municipality for the damage.
In a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal dispute, the applicant, the driver, claimed $1,759 for vehicle repairs against the District of West Vancouver and the Municipal Insurance Association of British Columbia (MIABC).
Both the City and MIABC stated that they’re not responsible, citing a reasonable road repair policy in place. They added that any damage that the applicant incurred to his vehicle was his fault because he failed to drive slowly over a speed bump.
The tribunal sided with the City and MIABC for a few reasons.
- You might also like:
- Another closure planned for busy Vancouver Highway 1 area
- New 'Urban Currents' mural painted at downtown Vancouver plaza
- Vancouver’s installing a car tower near Granville Bridge – and people are pissed
The incident occurred on June 15, 2023, when the applicant was driving on a road maintained by West Vancouver. The case doesn’t specify exactly what road. One section of said road was recently repaired after water services were installed at a home in the area.
According to the driver, there was a one-inch depression in a section of the road that had not been filled to the previous level. There was also a speed bump just after the repaired section of road. He claimed that as he approached the area, his vehicle angled downward when it drove over the repaired road, causing his front bumper to hit the speed bump.
“He says the road was repaired a few days after he reported the incident,” the tribunal decision states.
The tribunal examined West Vancouver’s road repair policy, which states that road defects are addressed after a resident makes a complaint. It added that the depression in the road wasn’t initially fixed because no one complained until the applicant’s accident.
Fortunately for West Vancouver, the tribunal found that it did not breach its standard of care for road maintenance. The applicant didn’t provide any evidence or submissions about West Vancouver’s standard of care or that it didn’t act reasonably.
The kicker is that the tribunal stated that even if West Vancouver were negligent, the applicant’s negligence would have been the primary cause of the car damage, adding that if he had driven with more caution, he could have avoided the accident.
“I find that the potential for hazards on this road would have been obvious to a reasonably prudent driver. There were pylons and signs indicating ongoing construction along the road. The depression in the repaired section of the road was a different-coloured concrete that was clearly visible and avoidable,” the tribunal said.
It added that if he had driven more cautiously, his vehicle would’ve been safe.
The tribunal dismissed all claims.