The Civil Resolution Tribunal has ordered ICBC to pay a B.C. driver $150 — half the deductible they paid to get their car fixed.
In a July 22 decision, tribunal member Micah Carmody said Eileen Connors was in a motor vehicle accident with neighbour P.M. near the bottom of their adjoining driveways.
ICBC held Connors 100 per cent responsible for the accident.
“Mrs. Connors disagrees with ICBC’s assessment,” Carmody said.
Connors claimed $300 for the deductible.
“I infer they say they were not responsible for the accident,” Carmody said.
ICBC, however, said it acted reasonably and properly in its liability investigation and made the correct determination that Connors was 100 per cent responsible.
Connors made an insurance claim after a May 26, 2023, accident where the neighbours’ two driveways partially overlap.
“There are shrubs and fencing dividing Mrs. Connors’ and P.M.’s driveways that hinder visibility,” the ruling said.
The collision caused a scrape along most of the driver’s side of Connors’ vehicle but only affected the right side of P.M.’s rear bumper.
On June 19, 2024, Connors paid their $300 collision deductible to have her vehicle repaired.
There were no witnesses other than Connors and P.M. There was no dashcam footage, no photos showing the position of the vehicles as they came to rest after the accident and no photos of damage to either vehicle.
Connors said they was reversing down their driveway, looking at their backup camera, and did not see another vehicle before hearing a “bang” from the collision.
P.M. said she pulled into her driveway and stopped to open her gate. She opened the gate, walked back to her vehicle, and was about to release the emergency brake to continue up her driveway when Connors’ vehicle struck her right rear bumper.
Connors argued that the damage along their vehicle’s driver’s side was inconsistent with hitting a parked vehicle.
“I disagree,” Carmody said. “It is not obvious to me that a moving vehicle could not scrape its driver’s side along a parked vehicle’s bumper and suffer damage.”
Carmody also took issue with P.M.’s version of events, finding that, in order to open her gate, her vehicle would have been directly in the path of Connors’ vehicle.
“Overall, the evidence is more consistent with both drivers reversing down their driveways at the same time and failing to see each other until it was too late,” Carmody said.
Carmody said both drivers failed to drive with due care and attention, and both drivers were equally at fault for the accident.
“I find Mrs. Connors was 50 per cent responsible for the accident, and I order ICBC to pay them $150 in damages for their deductible,” Carmody ruled.
