2020 QCCQ 1363, 2020 QCCQ 1363

Drucker c. 9383-6591 Québec inc. 2020 QCCQ 1363 JG2338 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF BEAUHARNOIS LOCALITY OF SALABERRY-DE-VALLEYFIELD Civil Division No: 760-32-701080-196 DATE: January 20, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE CÉLINE GERVAIS, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ Robert DRUCKER Plaintiff v. 9383-6591 QUEBEC INC.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr. Drucker claims from 9383-6591 Quebec inc. (9383-6591) the amount of $ 1071.79, representing the cost to repair his vehicle’s antenna that was damaged during a car wash on February 10, 2019. THE FACTS: [ 2 ] On February 10, 2019, Mr. Drucker buys a car wash for his vehicle, a 2003 Volkswagen Beatle.

At the end of the car wash, he hears a metallic noise and realizes, at the exit, that the antenna at the top of the roof was broken and that a metal part was ripped off. He immediately went to the cashier to report the accident and asked for the manager. According to Mr. Drucker, the manager denied the garage’s liability, saying that it did not happen at the car wash and that Mr. Drucker could not prove it. [ 3 ] The cashier, Mr. Hamadi, testified and confirmed that he saw the broken antenna, but he did not have any access to the camera system. He says that it’s the first time that such a thing happens. [ 4 ] Mr.

Drucker had not yet repaired the antenna at the time of the hearing. The amount of $ 1071.79 that he claims comes from an estimate by Excellence Dodge Chrysler Jeep, which was the cheaper of two estimates that he obtained to assess the damages. [ 5 ] In its contestation, 9383-6591 states that the car wash is touchless and that the equipment is regularly checked.

It also alleges that over a hundred car washes were done on that day and that no other complaints were received. [ 6 ] In her testimony, 9383-6591’s representative said that the maintenance of the car wash is made every day and that if there is any problem, the car wash is closed immediately. [ 7 ] She says that the system just blows air and has wheels to prevent any contact. She says that the dryer does not produce enough pressure to break an antenna. On the contrary, Mr. Drucker pretends that the force of the blower just broke the antenna’s screws. ANALYSIS AND DECISION: [ 8 ] The relationship between Mr.

Drucker and 9383-6591 is contractual by its nature. To succeed, he has to prove that 9383-6591 committed a fault, that he suffered some damages and that those damages were caused by 9383-6591’s fault. There is no presumption that 9383-6591 is at fault just because the antenna broke during the car wash. [ 9 ] Many decisions of jurisprudence say that any plaintiff has the obligation to prove that the system was not functioning as it

should or that it was not well conceived. [1] [ 10 ] Though Mr. Drucker has proven to the Court that his antenna was broken and how much it would cost him to have it repair, he has not succeeded in proving that his car’s antenna was broken due to a fault committed by 9383-6591 or that the car wash was not functioning properly. [ 11 ] Consequently, his claim cannot be granted but considering circumstances, it is dismissed without cost. FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: DISMISSES the action; THE WHOLE without cost. __________________________________ CÉLINE GERVAIS, J.Q.C.