2010 QCCQ 11652, 2010 QCCQ 11652

Babel c. Plaza Chevrolet Hummer Cadillac 2010 QCCQ 11652 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-119315-093 DATE: December 14, 2010 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SUZANNE HANDMAN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ NORMA A. BABEL […] Pierrefonds Québec […] Plaintiff v.

PLAZA CHEVROLET HUMMER CADILLAC 10480, boulevard Henri-Bourassa Ouest St-Laurent Québec H4S 1N6 Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff, Norma Babel, is suing Defendant, Plaza Chevrolet Hummer Cadillac, for $1,607.61, alleging negligence on its part since her brakes failed, two days after Defendant carried out a complete maintenance inspection on her car. Defendant claims the problem could have occurred at any time and denies responsibility.

The evidence: [ 2 ] Plaintiff brought her car to Defendant for a complete maintenance inspection on April 7, 2009. Two days later, on her way to Toronto, her brakes failed. [ 3 ] Plaintiff immediately brought her car to the closest garage in Napanee, Ontario, which freed the rear brake bleeder screws and replaced her brake lines for $378.84. Plaintiff had to stay overnight and incurred taxi and hotel costs of $6 and $117.82 respectively. [ 4 ] Plaintiff contacted Defendant, which asked Plaintiff to bring her car back and offered to assist her.

Plaintiff did not return to Defendant; rather she sent a demand letter claiming $1,607.61, including $1,000 in damages. [ 5 ] According to Plaintiff, Defendant was negligent for not having advised her that her brake lines were corroded and for not bringing a safety issue to her attention. [ 6 ] Defendant admitted it had noted that the bleeders on the brake calipers were rusty when it serviced Plaintiff's car in November 2009 and therefore it did not change the brake oil. However, Defendant claimed there was no need to change the brake lines since there was no loss of oil.

Furthermore, it would not recommend changing the brake lines simply because of the rust. [ 7 ] After servicing the car, Defendant had carried out a road test and there was no problem. Had there been a leak, the brake light would have illuminated and the brakes would not have worked. Finally, Defendant claims that the 1998 GMC Safari vehicle, which had 231,434 kilometers, had been driven 287 kilometers since it was serviced at its garage and such problems can occur with an old car. Analysis: [ 8 ] Defendant claims it does not recommend the replacement of the brake lines because of rust.

However, in this case, during

the inspection of Plaintiff's car on November 11, 2008, the bleeders on the brake calipers were so rusty that Defendant was unable to change the brake oil; it feared that the bleeder or related parts would break if it attempted to do the job. [ 9 ] Even if Defendant could not specify the exact time at which the brakes would fail, Defendant should have advised Plaintiff of the problem that could occur if the repair was not made so that she could have made an informed decision as to whether or not she would have the brake lines changed.

Moreover, in April 2009, Defendant made no mention of any problem with the brake lines such that Plaintiff continued to drive.

Having failed to inform Plaintiff of the risk involved in driving with such badly corroded brake lines, Defendant is liable for the damages suffered by Plaintiff. [ 10 ] Plaintiff is claiming the cost of her car repair ($378.84), taxi ($6), hotel bill ($117.82) and that part of Defendant's invoice of April 7, 2009, which deals with the brake verification ($104.95) for a total of $607.61 plus $1,000 as damages for trouble and inconvenience. [ 11 ] The Court considers that Plaintiff is entitled to recover her hotel and taxi costs as well as the cost relating to the verification of her brakes in April 2009, for a total of $228.77.

However, she is not entitled to the reimbursement of her brake repair that was carried out in Ontario. [ 12 ] Plaintiff never paid Defendant for this repair and had Defendant advised her of the brake problem when it inspected her car, she would have been obliged to pay for the repair at that time. [ 13 ] As for Plaintiff's request of $1,000 for her trouble and inconvenience, Plaintiff had to remain overnight in Napanee instead of reaching her Toronto destination. While Plaintiff suffered some delay, she failed to explain the impact of this delay on her visit in Toronto.

For these reasons, the Court, in its discretion, limits the amount of damages to the sum of $250. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS , in part, Plaintiff's action; CONDEMNS Defendant Chevrolet Hummer Cadillac to pay Norma Babel the sum of $478.77, plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity foreseen by

section 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec , since July 21, 2009, plus judicial costs of $99. __________________________________ SUZANNE HANDMAN, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: November 22, 2010