A Coquitlam motor vehicle accident involving a 1960s era classic car has ended up before the Civil Resolution Tribunal.
In an , vice-chair Andrea Ritchie upheld the ICBC decision awarding fault to Deanna Wesley and Raymond Patty Medway.
In statements to the CRT, Wesley and Medway said they "carefully" backed up their 2002 Ford Ranger truck to get around a vehicle that was blocking them in a Coquitlam coffee shop parking lot.
After this maneuver, a man, identified only as RM, approached them and told them they had reversed into his vehicle, a 1967 Pontiac Beaumont.
ICBC determined they were 100 per cent at fault in the accident, which the couple deny.
In a signed statement to ICBC on July 15, 2022, Wesley wrote she didn't feel any "bump," and says there was no impact with RM's vehicle
They claim ICBC "dismissed" the witness statement of Wesley, who was the passenger as well as the owner of the vehicle, while accepting the evidence of two witnesses they said were "liars" and weren't in a position to observe the situation closely.
In statements to the CRT, Wesley and Medway argued that ICBC performed an "incompetent biased investigation," or no investigation at all.
However, to prove their case against the ICBC decision, the couple had to prove ICBC acted improperly or unreasonably in assigning responsibility for the accident to them.
As well, they had to prove they were less responsible for the accident than ICBC's assessment, according to the CRT.
Both tests are crucial, Ritchie pointed out, so that even if the couple proved they were less at fault, they still had to prove that ICBC didn't do its job properly.
In assessing fault, the CRT took into consideration two witness statements that put the fault on the driver of the Ford Ranger.
One said they were in a vehicle side-by-side with the Ford Ranger in the parking lot when it started backing up; they yelled at Medway to stop "probably six times" before the Ford Ranger hit the Pontiac's front bumper.
Another witness — a pedestrian — said they saw the Pontiac Beaumont lined up behind the Ford Ranger, which then reversed into the Pontiac.
The witness told ICBC that people were yelling for the Ford’s driver to stop before the vehicles collided.
ICBC's Material Damages department also assessed both vehicles through photographs and measurements and found a collision was possible although there was no material debris. The estimator also wrote that that "due to factory placement of mounting bracket apparatus on the Pontiac, not much force is required to buckle its face bar."
The provincial insurer also provided a statement from Jonathan Gough, a professional engineer with CEP Forensic, from a report dated May 2, 2023, that said both the Ford Ranger and Pontiac Beaumont had pre-existing bumper damage that was not the result of the July 13, 2022, incident.
He also explained that, based on the measurements of both vehicles, there would be an overlap of approximately 5 cm or 2 inches where the vehicles could have collided.
He also stated that the Pontiac Beaumont's bumper is more "decorative" and requires little force to deform, making it possible for the Pontiac’s bumper to sustain damage while the Ford’s bumper did not.
However, Gough acknowledged in his report that it was "not possible to determine with certainty whether the Pontiac’s damage was related to the incident or not."
In weighing the evidence, the CRT accepted the witness statements and said there was no evidence to suggest they are "liars" who were compelled to provide evidence.
While the information provided by the estimator and the engineer did not prove conclusively the vehicles collided, ICBC "reasonably considered the evidence before it and the relevant law."
"I find the applicants have not proven ICBC acted improperly or unreasonably in investigating the accident and assigning fault. So, I find the applicants have not satisfied section 10(a) of the 2-part test. It follows that the applicants’ claim must fail."
ICBC didn't pay tribunal fees so none were reimbursed. As well, ICBC was denied $1,077.83 for Gough’s report as a dispute-related expense because ICBC failed to properly include his expert qualifications and the report was not helpful in determining the issue.
