Sedan v. Styles Date:, 2012 BCPC 448

Citation: Sedan v. Styles Date: 20121211 2012 BCPC 0448 File No: 1241056 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: KARA LEE SEDAN CLAIMANT AND: TRISH STYLES DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF HIS WORSHIP L. A. KAHN Appearing on their own behalf: Kara Lee Sedan Counsel for the Defendant: S. Leung Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: November 21, 2012

Date of Judgment: December 11, 2012 [ 1 ] This matter came before me on November 21, 2012 pursuant to the Simplified Trial Rules under the Small Claims Act . It concerns a minor motor vehicle accident that took place on March 31, 2012 on West Broadway in Vancouver, B.C. [ 2 ] The Claimant, Kara Lee Sedan (“Ms. Sedan”), confirmed that the facts set out in her Trial Statement were true and accurate to the best of her knowledge. [ 3 ] Counsel for the Defendant, S. Leung (“Ms.

Leung”), confirmed that the facts and particulars set out in the Defendant’s Trial Statement were true and accurate. [ 4 ] The Defendant, Trish Styles (“Ms. Styles”), rear ended Ms. Sedan at a slow speed while both cars were driving in the middle of three lanes. Also, Ms. Sedan says that as she was pulling into the right-hand lane to park her car to inspect the damage to her car and talk with Ms. Styles, Ms. Styles pulled around to her left and caused a second collision, hitting Ms. Sedan’s car on the left hand side of the rear bumper with the right-hand front bumper of Ms. Styles’ car. [ 5 ] Robert Brown (“Mr.

Brown”) was the front seat passenger in Ms. Sedan’s car. He corroborated Ms. Sedan’s testimony concerning the first collision, but says that he did not notice the second impact. [ 6 ] Ms. Styles denies there was a second impact. [ 7 ] Ms. Styles expected Ms. Sedan to pull over to discuss what had occurred. However, Ms. Styles did not see where Ms. Sedan had driven. She did not see her park in the right hand lane, and thought that she had left the scene because there were no damages from the slight impact. Until she was contacted by I.C.B.C., she did not know that Ms.

Sedan was claiming that there was any damage to her car. [ 8 ] Both parties placed into evidence several photographs in their respective Trial Statements. According to Ms. Sedan, several of the photographs depicted the damage to her car from the initial collision at the centre rear of her car, apparently caused by the impact of Ms. Styles’ license plate. [ 9 ] Mohammed Buksh (“Mr. Buksh”), an I.C.B.C. estimator, testified on behalf of the Defendant. He has been employed in that capacity for 14 years.

He inspected the Claimant’s car and took the photographs found at Tab 1 of the Defendant’s Trial Statement. [ 10 ] When Mr. Buksh inspected Ms. Sedan’s car, he knew that there had been a rear end collision. In his opinion, the damage to the Claimant’s car was old damage which was not caused by the initial impact between the Claimant’s and the Defendant’s cars. [ 11 ] Mr. Buksh said the damage to the left hand portion of the Claimant’s rear bumper was caused by an object similar to a pole, and not from a second collision, as alleged by the Claimant.

During his testimony, I was directed to the photograph in Tab 1 of the Defendant’s Trial Statement dated as 2012/4/4, with the words “old damage” which noted to the white marks on the bumper. [ 12 ] With respect to the initial collision, Mr. Buksh said that the height of the Defendant’s vehicle where the license plates were located was about 16 inches from the ground. However, the damage on the Claimant’s car was at about 26 inches from the ground.

Also, there was a photograph at Tab 2, which indicated that the bottom bolts holding the license plate to the front of the Defendant’s car were approximately 12 inches from the ground. [ 13 ] In cross-examination, Mr. Buksh was asked if the wire which was holding the upper portion of the Defendant’s license plate (at the 16 inch level) could have caused the damage to the Claimant’s car. Mr. Buksh said this could not be so because there would have been wire marks from the impact which were not present. [ 14 ] The deficiency with respect to Mr.

Buksh’s evidence was the fact that he did not inspect the Defendant’s car. Nonetheless, I prefer the evidence of the Defendant and her witnesses to that of the Claimant and her witness with respect to whether or not any damage occurred as a result of the collision for the following reasons:

a) The damage to the left-hand bumper area of the Claimant’s car, i.e. the second collision, could not have been caused by the Defendant. The only photograph with the white markings is the one in paragraph 10 above. None of the photographs of the Defendant’s car showed similar damage, nor was there any explanation how the white markings could have occurred from a minimal impact on the top of the Claimant’s left-hand bumper area.

b) Mr. Brown testified that he did not notice a second collision.

c) The damage to the left-hand bumper area appears to be relatively significant in relation to the damage that was alleged to have occurred from the initial collision, and from the description of the second collision, if it occurred, at all. [ 15 ] I prefer the evidence of Mr. Buksh, who is an experience adjuster. He assessed the damage using height measurements and concluded that the damage to the Claimant’s car was not caused as a result of the collision. [ 16 ] Accordingly, I dismiss the claim, but do not award any costs against the Claimant. ________________________

Lawrence A. Kahn Adjudicator