Why driver in parking lot accident can’t make injury claims

A driver who was found 100% responsible for an accident cannot make injury claims, B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) said in a Jul. 10 decision (Ly v. Lao, 2024 BCCRT 660).

Applicant Tan Loi Ly was reversing his vehicle out of a parking stall on Jul. 15, 2020, when he collided with a vehicle being driven by respondent Yin Ying Lao down the parking lot’s aisle. Both drivers are insured by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), which found the applicant 100% responsible for the accident.

Ly filed two CRT disputes. One to determine liability and damages. The other to determine if his injuries are ‘minor injuries’ under the definition in B.C.’s Insurance (Vehicle) Act and Minor Injury Regulation. CRT vice chair Christopher Rivers opted to address both disputes in one decision.

The applicant and respondent collided in a Vancouver parking lot. Photographs show the applicant’s right rear bumper hit the respondent’s right front bumper. Their accounts of the accident differ.

“The applicant himself gives two different accounts of the accident,” Rivers wrote in his decision. “He gave one account by telephone to ICBC when he reported the collision, and a second to the CRT in a signed statement setting out his position.”

In the first, the applicant told ICBC he was halfway through reversing out of a parking stall, checked over his shoulder and saw no other vehicles and continued to reverse. The parties collided.

In the second account, he said he completed reversing out of the stall and put the car into drive when the respondent hit him. “He says the force of the impact pushed the vehicle back into the stall. The applicant’s spouse provided a signed statement saying the same thing,” according to the decision.

Meanwhile, the respondent told ICBC said they were travelling in the parking lot aisle and came to a stop to allow the applicant’s car to drive out of a stall, when they were hit on the right side of their vehicle.

The applicant argued ICBC’s notes of the accidents were “unsigned, undated hearsay and should be given no weight.” Rivers’ decision noted the tribunal placed significant weight upon ICBC’s notes of the parties’ accident reports, in part because the variations between those reports are not minor.

“The applicant does not say whether he included details like placing the car in drive or being pushed back into the stall in his initial report, or if he did not, why not,” the decision read. “Similarly, he does not address the difference between ICBC’s note that his car was halfway through backing out and his later statement that he completed backing out before placing the car into drive. I find this gap is too wide to explain by suggesting ICBC made an error in transcribing or summarizing the applicant’s call.”

Photographs show the respondent’s vehicle in the laneway and the applicant’s vehicle in the parking stall. Reports from both parties do not clarify whether the vehicles were moved after the accident and don’t help the tribunal to make a determination.

But the location of the damage on the vehicles does. The respondent’s front right bumper is damaged below the headlight, ahead of the tire, on the car’s right side. The applicant’s right, rear bumper has a single, circular mark. That makes the photographs more consistent with the respondent’s description, Rivers said.

“I find the applicant’s initial description is a more likely version of events…It demonstrates that he did not reverse his vehicle with caution, since the respondent was undisputedly there.”

Provincial regulations require an applicant to prove their case. But the tribunal determined he had not done so, was solely liable for the accident and not entitled to damages. By extension, Rivers wrote, “since I dismiss the applicant’s claim for damages, I find there is no benefit to determining whether his injuries are ‘minor injuries,’ and I dismiss his claim as moot.”

 

Feature image courtesy of iStock/AWSeebaran