A woman sued the City of Richmond because she believed it acted negligently after she drove through a paint spill that got on her car.
In a tribunal hearing between Alison Cockburn and the City of Richmond, Cockburn alleged that the City bore the responsibility for wet paint on a street transferring onto her car.
She claims the City was negligent because it didn’t warn drivers about the paint, nor did the City remove it.
Cockburn sought $400 in the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal hearing, the estimated amount to remove the paint from the wheels, wheel wells and other areas of her vehicle.
Richmond, which a lawyer represented, denied being negligent and said it didn’t cause the spill and first learned about it from Cockburn herself.
A statement was presented to the tribunal from BG, a supervisor for the City’s roads and construction department who had worked within it for 26 years.
The City uses a complaints-based system for spills like the one that impacted Cockburn because they’re sporadic and unpredictable. BG added that the City of Richmond didn’t know about the spill until well after Cockburn drove through it.
When the City was advised of the spill, BG said it had dried, so no further action was needed.
Due to budgetary reasons, the City doesn’t regularly inspect its roads, but the tribunal found that this was consistent with its policy. The tribunal also found that the City did not owe Cockburn a duty of care because its response was consistent with its policy.
Ultimately, Cockburn could not provide evidence that the City’s policy was irrational or unreasonable, leading to the tribunal dismissing her claims.