No compensation for woman who drove through spilled white paint in Richmond

Spilled white paint on asphalt is seen in a Shutterstock image.

A woman who accused the City of Richmond of negligence after driving through spilled white paint has been denied compensation for the cost of cleaning her car.

Alison Cockburn filed a dispute in B.C.'s small claims tribunal asking the city to pony up $400, the estimated cost of removing paint from her vehicle, including on the wheels and wheel wells.

Cockburn told the Civil Resolution Tribunal she drove over the paint near Granville and Railway avenues on the evening of April 6, 2022, and argued Richmond should shoulder some of the blame.

"Ms. Cockburn wrote that the city was responsible because the paint was all over the road and there were no warnings posted about it," tribunal member David Jiang wrote in his decision.

According to the tribunal, in order for Cockburn to prove negligence she would have to demonstrate that the city owed her a "duty of care," that the city breached that duty, and that the breach caused her to suffer a loss.

Jiang found the driver's complaint failed on the first test.

The tribunal heard that Richmond operates on a complaints-based system with respect to its roads, meaning the city relies on drivers, police and firefighters to report issues like spilled paint.

A statement from a supervisor in Richmond's Roads and Construction Department said the system is in place because hazards and spills are unpredictable, happening only sporadically.

"(The supervisor) says the Public Works Department's staff time and budgetary resources are used to respond to possible emergency issues and focus on conducting repairs rather than proactive inspections for emergency issues," Jiang wrote.

The tribunal heard city crews were not painting the roads at the time of the spill, and staff hadn't received any complaints about it prior to Cockburn driving through the paint.

By the time someone alerted Richmond about the spill, the paint had dried, and the city took no further action, according to the supervisor.

Jiang said public authorities "do not owe a duty of care to public users of its property if its actions were based upon a policy decision," and found there was no evidence the city's roads policy was "irrational, unreasonable, or otherwise made in bad faith."

"So, I find it did not owe a duty of care," Jiang wrote.