Woman denied $5,000 payout from B.C. municipality after tripping in crosswalk

A crosswalk is seen in this undated stock image. (Shutterstock)

The City of Surrey isn't on the hook for a woman's injury claims after she tripped in a crosswalk, B.C.'s small claims tribunal determined.

The decision, posted by the Civil Resolution Tribunal Thursday, outlined an incident that happened about two years ago. Tribunal member Alison Wake explained that, on March 5, 2022, Jacqueline Lewis crossed the street at 152nd Street and 16th Avenue.

While crossing, the tribunal heard, Lewis tripped over a hole in the pavement.

"She says this caused her to stumble to the other side of the road, where she ultimately fell and suffered injuries," Wake wrote.

• Read the full CRT decision here

Lewis claimed $5,000 for pain-and-suffering damages as well as $80 for physiotherapy expenses. However, CRT's small claims maximum is $5,000, so her file was limited to that amount.

"The city does not dispute that Mrs. Lewis fell at the intersection she described, and that it is responsible for maintaining that intersection," Wake's decision says. "However, the city says that it is not responsible for Mrs. Lewis's claimed damages, for several reasons."

In a phone interview with CTV News Vancouver, Lewis said she disagreed with the tribunal's decision and disputed claims she said were made by the city's lawyer, including that she was rushing home because she was carrying a tub of sherbet that she didn't want to melt. Lewis said she was not rushing across the crosswalk that day, adding no other factors contributed to her fall besides the hole in the pavement.

"I wanted the City of Surrey to admit that I had fallen due to the fact that they had problems on that crossing," she said. "I suffered severe injuries due to negligence on the part of Surrey."

To demonstrate negligence, Wake noted in her decision, Lewis would have to prove the city owed her a duty of care, the city breached the standard of care, she sustained a loss, and the city's breach led to that loss.

Wake said public authorities don't "owe a duty of care to public property users if their actions were based on a policy decision." In this case, Wake explained, the city's policy is to rely on service requests and reports from members of the public or city staff, adding that it's not able to conduct recurring road inspections because of budget restraints.

"I infer the city argues that its complaints-based policy for road maintenance is rational and made in good faith," Wake wrote.

Referencing a court decision involving the City of Nelson, a ruling previously determined a similar complaints-based policy wasn't irrational as there was no evidence that clearly dangerous situations were being ignored.

"I find the same applies here, and Mrs. Lewis has not provided any evidence that the city’s policy decision was irrational, unreasonable, or otherwise made in bad faith," Wake's decision reads.

An affidavit from the city's street manager submitted to the tribunal said a review of service requests for the two-year period before Lewis's fall didn't show any complaints about that particular intersection.

Lewis told CTV News Vancouver that, because of the fall, she was taken to hospital with several injuries, including bruising on her brain and a concussion. Lewis said she required multiple brain scans, an MRI on her hip and physiotherapy after her fall.

While Wake acknowledged Lewis's injuries, she wrote in her decision "this does not necessarily mean the city is responsible" for them.

"The city is not an insurer against injuries resulting from the use of its streets," Wake wrote.

The street manager acknowledged some "marks and depressions" in that particular intersection, but argued they didn't require repair as they're "reasonable and standard deviations."

"Mrs. Lewis provided a photograph which she says she took at the crosswalk in question. It shows a small hole in the pavement," Wake's decision says.

"I find this photograph alone is insufficient to conclude that the city obviously breached a reasonable standard of care for road maintenance. As Mrs. Lewis provided no other evidence about the applicable standard of care or the city’s alleged breach of it, I would have dismissed her claim in any event."

This article has been updated to include Lewis's comments shared with CTV News Vancouver on March 12, 2024.