| |
|
.gif)
|
|
.jpg)
|
|
Rao M. Konduru
BTech,MEng,MS,PhD,DSc,PEng
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winning the Small Claim With My Own Efforts in the Small Claims Court,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Was One of My Major Accomplishments.
I, Alone By Working Hard, Performed Like a Brilliant
Lawyer in the Courtroom, Defeated a Team of Highly
Experienced and Tough Lawyers By Using the Law,
Proved My Case Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, and Won
the Case.
I HAVE MET THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
|
|
The driver who caused the accident was a dishonest
individual. At the time of accident, he admitted his
fault and agreed to repair my vehicle in a private
autobody shop, but later changed his mind, lied
about everything to the adjuster of the Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC). His
adjuster, my adjuster and the supervisor
of the
claim centre were all found to be incompetent and
unfit to do the job. They are so under-educated that
they
have no intelligence to read and understand the
rules and laws of the road, and apply them
appropriately to
this particular case in a fair manner. The staff of
the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC)
chose to
resolve this matter in the easiest possibility, that
is to say they decided to lie about everything and
rip me off.
They supported and protected that dishonest and
lying driver, discriminated me, covered it up, and
ripped me off mercilessly. They all supposed that I
was a stupid and wouldn't even notice their
wrongdoing, and would move on.
But I was severely offended by their immoral and
unethical actions, and decided to teach all of them
a lesson.
I have read and understood the law (Section 158,
Passing-On-Right, Motor Vehicle Act of British
Columbia)
and gained the clear concept about it. It was
crystal clear to me that the other driver broke the
law. I talked to
several Probono lawyers, collected all the
information on how to sue the driver and ICBC, went
to the
UBC library, read several law books on court
proceedings, and on how to win a case. I went to
Small Claims Court, filed small claim (Notice of
Claim). I spent countless hours in preparing for the
court trial, and proved my case in front of a Judge beyond a reasonable doubt. I was successful, and I won
the case. I have heard that almost
all car accident cases in small claims court are
ruled 50%-50%. But I was able to impress the Judge
immensely,
and the Judge ruled that the other driver (the
defendant) was 100%
liable and also awarded me the costs incurred.
During the trial, the Judge while being impressed by
my performance, said: "I wish I would
give you an award."
|
|
ABSTRACT OF THE SMALL CLAIM |
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Between
Rao Konduru Vs William P.
Lundholm
Small Claim Registry File #
1345173,
ICBC
Claim #
P872623-2
|
|
Plaintiff/Claimant: Rao Konduru
(Appearing on His Own Behalf Without a Lawyer)
Defendant: Mr. William P. Lundholm
Corporate Lawyer for the Defendant: Ms. Leilani Karr
(appointed by ICBC)
Place of Hearing: Vancouver Small
Claims Court (Room 106),
800 Hornby St, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Exhibit Card NUMBER: 430069
Date of Hearing: November 18,
2014
Date of Judgment: November 18, 2014
Judge Presided In The Trial: Honorable
Judge Ms. J. F. WERIER
|
NATURE
OF THE CASE
AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON JUNE 1, 2013 AT 1:00
PM AT THE ROYAL OAK SOUTHBOUND
AND SPROTT ST INTERSECTION, BURNABY, BRITISH
COLUMBIA, CANADA. THE DEFENDANT
Mr. WILLIAM P. LUNDHOLM WHO WAS SPEEDING EXCESSIVELY
OVERTOOK PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE
BY PASSING-ON-RIGHT IN A SINGLE LANE TRAFFIC,
CONTRARY TO SECTION 158,
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, AND CAUSED
ACCIDENT.
AS A RESULT OF THE ACCIDENT,
THE REAR LEFT TIRE OF THE DEFENDANT’S LARGE JEEP
SIDESWIPED AND DAMAGED THE FRONT RIGHT PORTION OF
THE PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE.
THE DEFENDANT LIED ABOUT
EVERYTHING TO INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH
COLUMBIA
(ICBC) AND GOT AWAY WITH THE ACCIDENT. THE
PLAINTIFF
SUED BOTH THE DEFENDANT AND
THE INSURANCE
CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA,
IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT,
FOR THE VEHICLE DAMAGE AND
COSTS INCURRED.
|
JUDGMENT
ON NOVEMBER 18, 2014, THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT,
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA,
FOUND THE DEFENDANT Mr. WILLIAM P. LUNDHOLM FULLY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCIDENT
OCCURRED ON JUNE 1, 2013 AT 1:00 PM AT THE ROYAL OAK
SOUTHBOUND AND SPROTT ST
INTERSECTION, BURNABY, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA. THE
COURT FOUND THE DEFENDANT
Mr. WILLIAM LUNDHOLM 100% LIABLE FOR THIS ACCIDENT.
THE COURT RULED THAT THE PLAINTFF’S VEHICLE DAMAGE
IS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF
AND TO BE REPAIRED BY THE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA (ICBC).
THE COURT ALSO AWARDED THE COSTS INCURRED TO THE
PLAINTIFF
IN THE AMOUNT OF $149.35 TO BE PAID BY THE
DEFENDANT
ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 28, 2014.
|
|
|
Go to the Top
|
|
|
|
Chronological List of Small Claim Events
|
|
01-Jun-2013
|
CAR ACCIDENT: I had an automobile accident
on June 1, 2013 at 1 pm at
the Royal Oak Southbound & Sprott St
intersection, Burnaby, BC,
Canada. The other driver,
Mr.
William P. Lundholm,
was speeding excessively, failed to stop behind my
vehicle, disoriented as the road ahead is narrower, passed on my right, and caused accident.
The rear-left tire of his jeep sideswiped and
damaged the front-right side of my vehicle He did not
stop immediately after the accident but increased
the speed further. After I honked 3 times and chased
him, he
stopped and walked back all the way half a block.
When I complained that he was not supposed pass on
my right in a single lane, he nodded his head and smiled,
indicating that he admitted his fault. We checked
damage to both vehicles. As the rear-left tire of
his jeep was very hard, he had no damage. We
exchanged the information (I provided him with pen
and paper). I asked him if he could repair my
vehicle in a private body shop and he agreed (he
nodded his head and smiled again). He acted like he
was in a rush and ran away. As the other driver
looked suspicious and did not confirm that he would
take care of the damage to my vehicle, I decided to
report the accident immediately to ICBC (Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia). However I do not
have any witnesses (Nobody came forward).
|
05-Jun-2013
|
I
called ICBC on June 1st, 2013 and reported the
accident over the phone. They gave me appointment to
report the accident in person in Surrey Claim
Centre, Surrey, BC, Canada.
My adjuster was Ms. TELMA KEIGHER. The
damage estimator
Mr. Charles Kidd
took the
Photographs of my Damaged
Vehicle.
I told my my adjuster that
the other driver passed on right (which is illegal),
caused accident, damaged my vehicle, fled the
accident scene without stopping. I also told that I
honked 3 times and chased him and then he stopped. I
also gave her some photographs of the accident.
My adjuster ruled that the other driver (Mr.
William P. Lundholm) was 100% at fault.
Then she sent a letter to the other driver. But the
other driver did not report the accident. They send
me a 2nd letter, but the other driver still not
responding. After that they launched an
investigation and probably phoned and alerted him.
Then he reported the accident.
|
24-Jun-2013
|
The other driver
Mr.
William P. Lundholm went to North Vancouver
claim centre and reported the accident to ICBC. When
he reported the accident,
Mr.
William P. Lundholm told ICBC's adjuster many lies:
He told that (i) he
stopped behind my vehicle (he
did not stop behind my vehicle, that is why there
was a disaster),
(ii) he stopped
immediately after the accident (no,
he actually fled the accident scene, I honked 3
times and chased him, then he stopped),
(iii) he refused to repair
my vehicle because it was not his fault (he
actually agreed to repair my vehicle in a private
body shop), and
(iv) there
are two lanes on Royal Oak Southbound and I drove
into his lane and hit his jeep and damaged my
vehicle myself (Royal
Oak Southbound as a matter of fact is a single lane
traffic).
The adjuster Mr.
MICHAEL SUTCLIFFE foolishly believed all the lies
told by the other driver and disbelieved all
the information I gave to my adjuster of ICBC. The
adjuster Mr. MICHAEL SUTCLIFFE, without checking the
Google maps of the accident scene and without
understanding the passing-on-right law negligently
and unjustly ruled that I was 100% at fault, and
helped the other lying driver get away from this
accident. That means he reversed my adjuster's
decision, and I was severely offended by this
careless, reckless & wrongful ruling.
|
11-Jul-2013
|
Ms. Kimberly Halliday, a claim's representative,
informed me by email and by phone that ICBC ruled in
favor of Mr. William Lundholm, and
that I was 100% at fault. I was stunned by that
unfair decision.
My adjuster Ms. Telma Keigher was on vacation so I
could not reach her. I talked to the Surrey Claim
Centre supervisor or manager Ms. Laurie Derby, and
requested to look into this matter.
Ms. Laurie Derby did not independently review my
claim but talked to the adjuster Mr.
MICHAEL
SUTCLIFFE, and supported him and protected his
wrongful decision. There was nothing I could do
about it. I later received a letter from my
adjuster Ms. Telma Keigher, which stated that I was
held one 100% liable for the accident. I called the
claim centre and requested a letter of damage
estimate, but the damage estimator
Mr. Charles Kidd phoned me told me that he cannot
send me a letter of damage-estimate because I
did not have third party
liability (which is ridiculous & meaningless). It
was clear to me all he was doing that prevent me
from suing the ICBC.
COMPLAINT LETTER
SENT TO THE CEO OF ICBC:
After the adjuster
Mr. Michael Sutcliffe and other employees ruled in
favor of the lying defendant and ripped me off,
I prepared a
complaint letter
to the CEO of ICBC, describing the conspiracy,
wickedness and crookedness of the ICBC adjusters and employees.
I prepared this letter immediately after they
deceived me and ripped me off, but I dropped off
this letter at the head office in
North Vancouver on Dec 12,
2013.
|
23-Jul-2013
|
I
called the customer relations of the ICBC's head
office.
Ms. Jackie Turner
answered my call.
I explained her everything what happened. She looked
into this matter carefully and advised me
that I had two options:
a. Apply for the Internal Assessment Review by an
Arbitrator, or
b. Take the case to Small Claims Court and sue the
other driver who caused the accident.
I chose to take the case to Small Claims Court because I wanted to use
the law. I read, re-read and understood the law thoroughly,
gained a clear concept and
I was confident that the other driver violated the
the passing-on-right law in Section 158,
Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia. I was
confident that I would prove the case beyond a
reasonable double
in front of a Judge without any witness.
|
31-Jul-2013
|
I filed the
NOTICE OF CLAIM
(Small Claim) in Small
Claims Court, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
|
31-Jul-2013
|
a.
I served the NOTICE OF CLAIM to the defendant by
registered mail. I kept the receipt.
b.
I also served a copy of the NOTICE OF CLAIM to ICBC
Claim Centre, Burnaby, BC, Canada, and
got a receipt
from ICBC. I served this receipt to the Small Claims
Court. Then my file is complete.
|
13-Aug-2013
|
REPLY:
The defendant replied to the NOTICE OF CLAIM by saying
that he was not at fault, and that ICBC ruled in his
favor. |
| |
|
02-Dec-2013
|
MEDIATOR'S MEETING:
I had Mediator’s Meeting.
Two ICBC lawyers and one private corporate lawyer (3
lawyers and the defendant) came to Mediator's
meeting to defend that lying defendant. There were 4
people on defendant's side to support and protect
that lying driver. I was the only one person on my
side. One ICBC lawer was found to be a dummy with
unprofessional character, kept arguing with baseless
and groundless statements just to scare me so that I
will drop the case. But I was strong and did not
give him/them a chance. I explained then that the
other driver got away from the accident by simply
lying and that he broke all parts of the law. Nothing has been settled in this
meeting. The Mediator was found to be too neutral,
and did not do anything to settle the case. So the
case moved to the next phase of events, "Trial
Conference."
|
17-Mar-2014
|
I filed the
TRIAL STATEMENT OF THE PLAINTIFF/CLAIMANT
(with 6 Photos) in Small
Claims Court, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
|
18-Mar-2014
|
I served
in person a copy of the TRIAL STATEMENT OF THE
PLAINTIFF/CLAIMANT with 6 Photos in person to the defence
lawyer, Ms. Leilani Karr, located in downtown
Vancouver, BC, Canada, and got a receipt from the
lawyer.
|
31-Mar-2014
|
I had an appointment for the "Application with a
Judge." In this meeting, my Trial Statement was
amended. More Costs ($300) were included as expenses
as my expenses were mounting.
|
03-Apr-2014
|
I received the
TRIAL STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT
from the
defendant's lawyer Leilani Karr by Registered Mail.
It is a large binder and contained many documents
and photographs from ICBC.
I found that this Trial Statement of the Defendant
was filled with false information. |
| |
|
11-Apr-2014
|
TRIAL CONFERENCE:
I had a Trial Conference
with Judge Yee (a Chinese guy). The Judge Yee was
found to be unprofessional, discriminative and acted
like a jerk. He gave me
a lot of trouble in this meeting, forcing me to settle the case
for the lower amount. He kept supporting the defence
team (the defence lawyer "Ms. Leilani Karr" and the
chief adjuster of ICBC "Mr. Bruce McIntosh")
whatever they said all the
time, and put me down unfairly. I found him a
closed-minded person, and I was fed up by his
nasty behavior. The purpose of the Trial Conference
was to train the plaintiff/claimant (that is me) on
how to prepare for the trial. But he did not do
anything about training me for the trial. He was
trying to settle and close the case for a lower
amount of claim. I understood that he
was acting like that just to close the case and to
get some credit to improve his credentials. He was
so selfish and did not understand the fact that I
was a miserable victim in this case. But I refused
to settle the case. I explained the law to them
without looking into any pre-written notes as I
already memorized the law, Section 158. I
tentatively proved my case in this meeting by saying
that that the defendant violated the law (Motor
Vehicle Act of British Columbia), and convinced
Judge Yee and the defense team (Ms. Leilani Karr and
Mr. Bruce McIntosh) that I would prove my case beyond
a reasonable doubt. Then the case moved to the trial.
Trial date was set by the Judge.
|
|
12-May-2014 |
Deadline for Exchanging Photos (Trial Conference
Record) between Plaintiff and Defence Lawyer. |
|
15-May-2014 |
I served
some Extra Photos late to the defense lawyer Ms. Leilani
Karr. She accepted my photos. |
| |
|
|
18-Nov-2014 |
TRIAL DATE:
Trial took place from 9:30 am to 3:30 pm in the
Small Claims Court, Vancouver, BC, Canada. |
| |
I alone without any single witness proved my case
in front of a Judge beyond a reasonable doubt by using:
Google maps & lots of photographs of the accident scene, relevant
documents, the passing-on-right law (Section 158,
Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia), the law of
negligence, and the judgments and decisions of some
relevant cases. After I presented my case by taking
the witness stand in front of a Judge, after the
opening arguments, the defence lawyer cross-examined
me, asked me very tough questions, and tried hard to convert
this case into a He-Says-She-Says case.
I was
strong, did not give her a chance, and
answered all questions convincingly. I proved my
case to the
Judge beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant violated the law
"The Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia."
I convinced the Judge that under the current
circumstances, the defendant must not pass on my
right and cause the accident. In the
end, I won the case. The defendant was found one
100% liable. During the trial, the Judge while being
impressed by my performance, said: "I wish I would
give you an award."
|
|
|
|
Go to the Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
Plaintiff/Claimant Presented the Case In Front of a
Judge |
When the trial started at around 9:30 am on Nov 18,
2014, I (Rao Konduru) represented myself as the
plaintiff/ claimant without any lawyer. The
defendant (Mr. Wuilliam P. Lundholm) appeared with a
corporate lawyer (Ms. Leilani Karr) appointed by the
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC).
When the opening arguments began, the Judge made
sure that both parties (plaintiff and defence team)
exchanged all documents properly.
I told the Judge that most of the documents were
exchanged before deadline, and I served a few
documents late. The Judge asked the defence lawyer
if she raised any objections regarding the exchange
of documents, and the defence lawyer raised no
objection. Then I served one binder of
documents to the Judge, another binder to the
defence lawyer, I took the witness stand with my
binder, and presented the whole car accident case to
the Judge.
The slides shown below in the following pages are self-explanatory.
I
explained these slides one by one to the Judge.
|
|
1. At first I explained the
"Brief Description of the
Accident"
as shown in
the first photo-document
below:
The defendant who was speeding excessively, failed
to stop behind my vehicle, passed on my right,
causing accident. After I filed the claim, he lied
about everything to the insurance company ICBC
(Insurance Corporation of British Columbia), and got
away with the accident.
2. The defendant, when he reported the accident to
ICBC, lied to ICBC by saying that
Royal Oak Southbound has two lanes, and that I drove
into his lane and hit his vehicle. So by showing some Google maps and photographs
(Photo #1, Photo # 2, Photo # 3 & Photo # 4) I
proved to the court that the Royal Oak Southbound is a single lane
traffic (there are no two lanes). I then told the
following:
3. On June 1, 2013 at 1 pm, I was driving on Canada
Way from East to West and entered the Single-Lane
Traffic on Royal Oak Ave, driving from north to
south as I had doctor’s appointment. On the right
side of my car, there is the Entrance to Forest Lawn
Funeral Home (as shown in Photo # 3). When I reached
that spot, there was 1st vehicle that was trying to make left turn to Sprott
St with left-turn signal on. I was waiting for that
1st vehicle in front of me to complete the left
turn.
4. The other driver (defendant) was driving behind me, also came
from Canada Way and entered the Single-Lane
Traffic on Royal Oak Ave, driving from north to
south. The defendant was driving a large Jeep that
has very large tires made of thick hard rubber. I
was driving a small red car (1995 Corolla).
5. After the 1st vehicle in front of me completed
the left turn, I released my foot from the brake
pedal, and my vehicle started mving. The defendant
was driving very fast, became uncontrolled, failed
to shop behind my car, passed on right, could not complete his passing on right
safely, and as a result caused accident. He
changed the driving angle abruptly making a curve in
a rush, thereby hitting tangentially on the front-right
side of my vehicle. The rotating rear-left
tire of his jeep sideswiped the front-right side my
vehicle's bumper. Because the size of his Jeep is too big, and
as the road ahead was narrower, he could not
complete his passing on right, and as a result
caused accident.
6. We both heard loud noise but he did not stop, and
continued running away at very high speed. When I
honked loud 3 times and chased him, he stopped and
walked backwards almost a block. I found him
confused and nervous. I argued immediately by saying that it
was illegal to pass through right side on Single
Lane Traffic, you were supposed to stop behind
my vehicle. Sounded to me that he realized
that it was his fault. We checked each other’s cars.
His Jeep and his very large rear-left tire, made of
thick hard rubber, had no damage. The right side of
the front-right bumper of my red car had damage, and
the headlight and signal light were dislocated. We
exchanged the license plate number, driver’s license
number and phone number. I asked the other driver
(defendant) if he could repair my vehicle in a
private body shop. He nodded his head indicating
that he agreed. He then acted like he was in a rush
and ran away.
7. I went to ICBC and reported the accident
immediately. When I went to ICBC and reported the
accident, they took the
Photographs of my Damaged
Vehicle.
Please see the photographs
enclosed in the binder. My adjuster Ms. TELMA KEIGHER ruled that
the other driver (the defendant) was 100% at fault
(I showed the evidence in a document from ICBC to
the Judge).
8. The defendant did not go to ICBC and did not
report the accident. ICBC sent him letters twice. After 5 or 6 weeks,
when ICBC somehow reached him (probably by phone).
The defendant finally went to ICBC and reported the
accident on June 24, 2013 in North Vancouver Claim
Centre. He lives in Burnaby but he went to North
Vancouver to report the accident (I don't know if he
knows someone there).
|
When He Reported
the Accident, the Defendant
Told the Adjuster of ICBC the Following Lies:
1. He told ICBC that he stoped behind my vehicle.
He did not stop. He was speeding. He admitted
(nodded) when I complained at the time of accident.
2.
He told ICBC that immediately after the accident he
stopped.
No! He did not
stop. He fled the accident scene. I honked three
times and chased him. Then he stopped,
and walked back all the way more than half a block.
3.
He told ICBC that he refused to repair my vehicle
because it was not his fault.
No! He actually
agreed to repair my vehicle in a private body shop.
4.
He also told ICBC that there are two lanes on Royal
Oak Southbound, and that I drove into
his lane and hit his vehicle, and damaged my vehicle
with my own fault.
No! It was
untrue. There were no two lanes. Royal Oak
Southbound was a single
lane traffic.
The adjuster Mr. MICHAEL SUTCLIFFE believed all
the lies told by the defendant (he did not check the
Google maps, and he did not apply the law correctly) and disbelieved all
the information I gave to my adjuster of ICBC. The
defendant's adjuster Mr. MICHAEL SUTCLIFFE of ICBC ruled
that I was 100% at fault. That means he reversed my adjuster's
decision.
I showed the evidence in a document from ICBC to the
Judge.
|
9.
Doctor's Letter of Appointment is Used As Evidence
After that I asked the Judge to
please refer to the page in the binder where
Doctor's Letter is enclosed. The letter says that I
had a doctor's appointment at 1:20 pm on June 1st,
2013. I had an accident at Royal Oak Southbound and sprott St intersection at 1 pm on
the same day June 1st, 2013, which means that I was
on my way to the doctor's clinic when I had accident
at 1 pm. I
also asker her to refer to the Google map attached
to find out that my doctor's clinic is located in the direction of
south (straight ahead of my vehicle). I then
convinced the Judge by saying that this information
(the location of my doctor's clinic) suggests the
fact that
my vehicle was not turning left or signaling to the
left. I also said:
As long as my vehicle was not turning left or signaling to the left,
nobody was supposed to pass on my right.
10.
Summary of the Accident
In the
end of my presentation, I gave a quick summary of the
accident. I asked the Judge to please refer to the Photo #
9. Then I quickly summarized the accident by saying
the following: I will now quickly review my accident
Your Honor! On June
1st, 2013 at 1 pm, I was driving on Royal Oak
southbound and stopped at Sprott St intersection
behind another vehicle (1st vehicle) that was trying
to make a left turn and signaling to the left. After
the 1st vehicle completed the left turn, I released
my foot from the brake pedal, and my vehicle stated
moving. Within a second, the defendant, who was
driving a large jeep, came from my behind at high
speed, failed to stop behind my vehicle, passed on
right of my vehicle, cut my vehicle in a 45-degrees
angle as road ahead was narrower, and could not
complete his passing on right safely, and caused
accident. We both heard loud noise. As result of the
accident caused by the defendant, the rotating rear-left
tire of the defendant's jeep sideswiped the front-right portion of my
vehicle and damaged. After the accident, the
defendant fled the accident by further increasing
the speed of his jeep. After I honked 3 times, he
stopped and walked back all the way half a block.
Until today, he did not claim any responsibility of
the damage he caused to my vehicle. So I
came here today to face the defendant in a trial,
and to resolve this matter once and for all.
Now the defence team can ask me any questions, and I will answer
them all.
|
|
The
Defence Lawyer Cross-examined the Plaintiff/Claimant |
The defedant and the defence lawyer complained that
I was trying to overtake the 1st vehicle and also
after the 1st vehicle completed the left turn, my
vehicle was moving towards the right when the
defendant passed on my right side and therefore I
contributed to the accident. I handled this question
as follows
(I answered the question by looking at the Judge):
Please refer to the 3 vehicles in the "Brief
Description of the Accident" shown below in first
photo-document.
As the 1st vehicle was signaling and turning left,
if I wanted, I would have gone around the 1st
vehicle and
would have overtaken the 1st vehicle. That would
have been perfectly legal. Law allows me to do so.
At the
same time the defendant of the 3rd vehicle must not
pass on my right because my vehicle was not
signaling or
turning left. He could have passed on my right only
when my vehicle was signaling to the left (my
vehicle was
not signaling). He could also have passed on my
right if there was an unobstructed lane (2nd lane)
available on
my right side. But there was no 2nd lane on my right
side so the defendant must not pass on my right
side.
The defendant also complained that, after the 1st
vehicle completed left turn, my vehicle was moving
in the
right direction while the defendant's vehicle was
passing on my right. Even if it was true that my
vehicle was
moving in the right direction, I did not break any
rule and I did not break any law. I am not obligated
to comfort
anybody on my right side. This accident occurred in
a split second. There was no way I could have moved
to left
to comfort him. At first, the defendant absolutely
had no business on my right side. Under these circumstances,
the defendant must not pass on my
right, and he should stop behind my vehicle. He did pass on my right and
caused accident
so the defendant should be held one 100% liable for
this accident.
All the rules I just explained are incorporated in
the law Section 158, Motor Vehicle Act of British
Columbia.
In my CLOSING ARGUMENTS, I am going to read the law,
explain the law and convince the court beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant violated the
rules of the law. Then the Judge nodded her head.
|
|
|
|
The
Defendant Took the Witness Stand |
|
After I presented my case, and after I was
cross-examined by the defence lawyer, the defendant
took the witness stand. The defence lawyer asked the
defendant several questions and he presented
his version of the case. He admitted that he fled
the accident scene and I honked several times before
he stopped. After that I cross-examined him. |
|
|
|
|
|
The
Plaintiff/Claimant Cross-examined the Defendant |
|
P = Plaintiff/Claimant
(Rao Konduru), D = Defendant
(Mr. Wuilliam P. Lundholm) |
|
P: Mr. Lundholm, how are you
today?
D: Fine!
P: Do you remember we had an
accident on June 1st, 2013 at
1 pm? When we exchanged information, I
wrote the date and time of the accident
on a piece of paper, and gave it to you.
Do you remember that?
D: Yes!
P: At that time just before you
approached my vehicle there were two
vehicle: there was the 1st vehicle that
was trying to make left turn, and I
sopped behind that vehicle, I was in the
2nd vehicle, and you were in the 3rd
vehicle came behind me. Do you remember
that?
D: Yes!
P: OK! Next Question: Do you know the
license plate number of the 1st vehicle?
D: No!
P: I don't know either. We both
don't know the license plate number of
the 1st vehicle. Was the 1st vehicle
involved in the accident?
D: No! 1st vehicle was not
involved in the accident.
P: OK! Next Question: Let me confirm
this information with you. Before you
approached my vehicle, was the 1st
vehicle making
a left turn?
D: Yes!
P: Was the 1st vehicle signaling
to the left?
D: Yes!
P: OK! Next Question: Was my vehicle
making a left turn?
D: No!
P: Was my vehicle signaling to the
left?
D: No!
P:
Good! You just said that my vehicle was
not making a left turn,
and my vehicle was not signaling to the
left. Is that correct?
D: Yes!
So far I
(the plaintiff) have established a very
important information helpful to prove
my case. The defendant admitted under
oath that my vehicle was not making a
left turn and was not signaling to the
left. If we apply the passing-on-right
law now, it is clear that the defendant
violated the law (He must not pass on
my right as long as my vehicle was not
making a left turn, and not signaling to
the left).
P: OK! Next Question: When you
approached my vehicle, did you stop
behind my vehicle?
D: Yes, I stopped. |
P: How long did you stop?
D: I stopped for 1 or 2 seconds
(It was a lie).
P: OK! Next Question: Did you
overtake the 1st vehicle?
D: No! I didn't overtake the 1st
vehicle.
P: The 1st vehicle was already
gone. You couldn't have overtaken the
1st vehicle. Correct?
D: Yes!
P: OK! Next Question: Did you
overtake my vehicle (that is 2nd
vehicle)?
D: Yes! I overtook your vehicle.
P: OK! Next Question: When you
o0vertook my vehicle, did you pass on my
left or did you pass on my right?
D: I passed on your right.
P: OK! Next Question: After you
passed on my right and overtook my
vehicle, did you drive into that narrow
lane ahead?
D: Yes, I drove into that narrow
lane.
P: OK! Next Question: When you
passed on my right, was there a LINE on
the road between your vehicle and my
vehicle?
D: No! there was no line.
P: OK! Next Question: Royal Oak
Southbound is a single lane or it has
two lanes.
D: Royal Oak Southbound is a
single lane.
P: OK! NEXT QUESTION: When you
passed on my right, your vehicle and my
vehicle collided. Correct?
D: Yes!
P: And you told ICBC that I drove
into your lane and hit with my front
bumper, and damaged my vehicle at my own
fault. If it was true that I hit your
vehicle, why didn't you stop
immediately? Why were you fleeing away?
Do you remember, I honked 3 times, and
then you stopped, and walked back all
the way half a block?
D: No answer! The defendant
nodded.
P: Thank you! No further questions
your honor!
In this part of the cross-examination,
the defendant admitted that he overtook
my vehicle by passing on my right,
accident occurred when he passed on my
right, his silence to my last question
indicates that he admitted that he fled
the accident scene. He also admitted
that there was no LINE
between his vehicle and my vehicle when
he passed on my right. That means that
there was no second lane available on my
right side when he passed on my right.
Now I could apply the rules of the law and convince the
Judge that the defendant violated
section 158, Motor Vehicle act of
British Columbia by passing on my right
in a single lane traffic.
|
|
Click Here to View Closing Arguments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go to the Top |
Go to the Top
Go to the Top
Go to the Top
Go to the Top
|
|
|
Go to the Top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
My CLOSING ARGUMENTS Contain 5 Paragraphs Your
Honor!
|
|
1. Trial Statement of the Defendant
is Filled with False Information
2a. HOW THE COLLISION OCCURRED?
2b. WHO CAUSED THE ACCIDENT?
2c. WHO COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE
ACCIDENT?
3. The LAW: Motor Vehicle Act of
British Columbia
Section 158 Passing On Right
4. Judgments & Decisions of Some
Relevant Cases (5 Cases Discussed)
5. Compensation: How Much Is Being
Claimed in this Small Claim?
|
|
|
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Paragraph # 1
1.
Trial Statement of the defendant is Filled with
False Information
I was expecting that the Judge would close the case
based on this document alone as the defendant's
lawyer made inexcusable blunders in preparing this document.
This document was filled with
false information.
JUDGE'S DECISION:
The Judge did not allow this document into the
evidence because the defendant did not prepare
this document. The defendant's lawyer
prepared this document as a response to the
Plaintiff's Trial Statement, and
filed in
the court in a rush. The Judge said she won’t look
into the “the Trial Statement of the Defendant”
written by
the lawyer. It is not a serious document.
What the defendant testifies on the witness stand
counts.
The Trial Statement written by the lawyer
does not count. So the Judge disconsidered this
document.
|
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Paragraph # 2
2a. HOW THE COLLISION OCCURRED?
THE DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT:
Please see Photo # 3
through Photo # 9. The Collision Occurred because of
the defendant’s own negligence. He was speeding
excessively, failed to stop behind my vehicle,
passed on right, and when he was transitioning from
Wide Lane to Narrow Lane, as his Jeep was too long
(14 feet), he forced himself to cut my vehicle, and
as a result he could not complete his passing on
right safely.
His rotating rear left tire sideswiped the front
right portion my vehicle including the fender and
the right side of the front bumper.
Definition of Negligence:
In general usage, negligence means carelessness. The
failure to exercise the standard of care that a
reasonably prudent person would have exercised in
the same or similar situation. The failure to
exercise the standard duty of care for the safety of
other vehicles, other drivers and pedestrians that a
reasonably prudent driver would have exercised in
the same or similar situation.
The collision occurred because of his own negligent
driving conduct. The defendant
(Mr. William P. Lundholm)
did not act like a reasonably prudent driver in the
same or similar circumstances. The defendant
(Mr. William P. Lundholm)
had a CIVIL DUTY to
exercise the standard duty of care towards my
vehicle but he failed to exercise that CIVIL DUTY,
and as a result, my vehicle sustained damage. He
should have easily foreseen the predicament ahead as
the lane ahead was narrow and the right side of the
road was
obstructed. In addition, he failed the Safety Rule
of section 158 2(a).
Therefore the defendant Mr. William P. Lundholm
should be help one 100%
liable for the accident.
|
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Paragraph # 2
2b.
WHO CAUSED THE ACCIDENT?
THE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE ACCIDENT
AT HIS OWN FAULT, BY HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE because of
the following reasons (I am going to give you 7
reasons):
(i)
The defendant was negligent when he
focused on the 1st vehicle in an attempt
to go into that NARROW LANE as quickly as possible,
and ignored the 2nd vehicle which was my
vehicle. He decided that when he was far behind me
like an ignorant or foolish driver. Therefore he was
negligent.
(ii)
The Defendent Was NEGLIGENT WHEN HE FAILED TO STOP
BEHIND MY VEHICLE
(if he stopped behind my vehicle, there wouldn’t
have been any accident),
HE WAS NEGLIGENT WHEN PASSED ON RIGHT SO CLOSELY
WITHIN 6 INCHES, SQUEEZING OF MY VEHICLE
(he did not use the WIDE SPACE available on the
right side of my vehicle),
HE WAS NEGLIGENT WHEN HE CUT MY VEHICLE IN AN
ATTEMPT TO GO INTO THE NARROW LANE AHEAD OF MY
VEHICLE
(he forced himself to cut my vehicle because the
lane on the right reached deadend),
AND HE WAS NEGLIGENT WHEN HE FLED THE ACCIDENT SCENE
AND GONE PAST THE STOP LIMIT SIGN
(I honked 3 times & chased him, then he stopped and
walked back half a block).
(iii)
WIDE LANE = 22 ft wide.
What I am about to tell the court is the most
important point. Please listen carefully.
COMMON SENSE WOULD TELL
(We don’t need a Law to prove this case; Common
Sense can prove this case!):
When I asked him in the cross-examination, was there
a line between his vehicle and claimant's vehicle
(my vehicle), he said “no,” there was no line but he
still passed. Royal Oak Southbound is 22 feet wide.
If there is a line between his vehicle and my
vehicle, he would be traveling in his lane, and I
would be traveling in my lane, then there wouldn’t
have been any accident, NO ACCIDENT AT ALL.
If there is no line between his vehicle and my
vehicle, he wouldn’t know where is he was going and
I wouldn’t know where was going, then these two
vehicles will definitely collide. Or there is a high
likelihood that these two vehicles would collide. By
passing on my right, he created that dangerous
situation ALL BY HIMSELF. I did not create that
dangerous situation, he created that dangerous
situation ALL BY HIMSELF just by passing on my
right. I did not contribute even 1% to that
dangerous situation, and he contributed 100% to that
dangerous situation. When he passed on my right even
though there was n line that separates his vehicle
and my vehicle and created that dangerous situation
ALL BY HIMSELF, the defendant was one 100%
negligent. Therefore the defendant should be held
one 100% liable for this accident.
(iv).
THE DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT WHEN HE PASSED ON RIGHT
AND DAMAGED MY VEHICLE ON THE FRONT-RIGHT PORTION OF
MY VEHICLE. The defendant already admitted that he
passed on the right-side of claimant’s vehicle. The
damage to the claimant’s vehicle is consistent with
passing on right. When the defendant’s rear left
tire sideswiped the front right side of my vehicle,
the defendant was negligent.
Please see Claimant’s Binder Photo # 10 thru Photo #
20 (for claimant's damaged vehicle)
Defendant’s Binder, Tag # 6, from Page 9 to Page 17.
The black substance stuck all the way through the
fender and the right side of my vehicle came from
the rubber residue of the rotating rear-left tire of
the defendant.
This indicates the fact that the defendant’s rear
left tire sideswiped the front right portion of my
vehicle.
As the tires of the defendant’s Jeep are made from
the thick hard rubber, his vehicle did not sustain
damage.
(v) THE DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT WHEN HE WAS SPEEDING
EXCESSIVELY DISOBEYING THE SPEED LIMIT SIGNS.
EXCESSIVE SPEEDING IS THE MAJOR FACTOR IN THIS
ACCIDENT.
When he disobeyed/violated the Speed Limit Sign
located just before entering the accident scene and
just after the accident scene, he was negligent.
Please see Photo # 21 and Photo # 23.
Because he was driving at high speed, he lost
control and he was disoriented. He could not plan
his maneuver properly so he got in trouble; he
failed to stop at least on the right side of my
vehicle.
He did not exercise reasonable standard of care
towards my vehicle that a prudent driver would have
exercised. As a result, my vehicle sustained damage.
(vi)
HE WAS NOT ONLY NEGLIGENT, BUT IRRESPONSIBLE
He was found to be IRRESPONSIBLE when he fled the
accident scene,
and he was also IRRESPONSIBLE when he did not report
the accident to ICBC for 23 days, and he was
irresponsible when he did not claim responsibility
until today to repair my vehicle. As a matter of
fact, fleeing the accident scene itself indicates
that he was involved in wrongdoing. He knew that he
did something wrong, that is why he fled the
accident scene.
THAT SOMETHING WRONG WAS: “PASSING ON RIGHT WAS
ILLEGAL.” I am going to explain that LAW in a bit.
After committing the tort, he gave two lame excuses
to ICBC.
LAME EXCUSES: 1. 1st vehicle
was signaling so he could pass (1st
vehicle's signal has nothing to do with his passing),
2. There were
Two Lanes (actually
there was only one lane).
Tort law allows the courts to compensate the
victims. I am a victim because my vehicle sustained
damage.
INTERSECTION:
This accident occurred in an intersection.
In any intersection, there are no lane markings so
he should not pass on right in an intersection.
When there are no Lane Markings,
there is high likelihood that the two vehicles will
collide. He can pass on right when there are lane
markings so that he can safely pass in his lane so
no accident would occur.
(vii) Please See Defendant’s Trial Statement,
Paragraph # 6
a. The defendant alleged
(declared but without proof) that: the Claimant
pulled into the right-hand lane, causing the front
bumper of the Toyota to collide with the rear-left
wheel of his Jeep and caused accident. REALLY?
I am going to address that allegation:
a. At first if that was true that I hit his vehicle,
WHY WAS HE RUNNING AWAY (HE WAS FLEEING AFTER THE
ACCIDENT)?
b.
My Vehicle did not have damage on the front side of
the front bumper. My vehicle had damage on the right
side of the front bumper, and on the fender, which
was consistent with passing on right.
c. In Paragraph# 6, there is false information “the
Claimant Pulled into the right-hand lane.” There is
no such right-hand lane. That right-hand lane is
FLASE INFORMATION. Because there is false
information in Paragraph # 6, the entire Paragraph
should be considered FALSE.
|
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Paragraph # 2
2c.
WHO COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE ACCIDENT?
THE DEFENDANT COULD HAVE THE ACCIDENT.
The Defendant Could Have Very Easily Avoided the
Accident by Being A Reasonably Prudent Driver.
THE ONLY WAY I (the plaintiff) COULD HAVE AVOIDED
THE ACCIDENT IS: IF HE STOPPED BEHIND MY VEHICLE,
AND GOING AROUND MY VEHICLE SLOWLY. BECAUSE HIS
VEHICLE WAS LONG (MORE THAN 14 FEET LONG),
I COULD HAVE SEEN HIS JEEP IN FRONT OF ME, AND CULD
HAVE STOPPED MY VEHICLE FROM MOVING.
The Defendant Could Have Easily Avoided the Accident
if He Could Have Followed the Speed Limit Signs.
The defendant was speeding aggressively behind speed
limits AS IF IT WAS A HIGHWAY. That is why I had
accident.
There Was a Speed Limit Sign (50 Km/hr) just before
the Accident Scene, and there was another Speed
Limit Sign (50 Km/h) just after the accident scene.
The defendant Disobeyed both signs.
CLAIMANT
MADE THE FOLLOWING CALCULATIONS
Royal Oak Southbound “between Canada Way & Sprott
St” Is
A “Steep Curve” That Measures 40 Meters In Length
(See Photo # 5).
Distance between Canada Way Intersection and Sprott
St intersection = 40 meters
Defendant’s Vehicle
How Many Meters the Defendant' Vehicle Could Have
Driven Per second?
If Defendant Was Driving at 90 Km/hr, 90,000
meters/3600 seconds = 25 m/s
If Defendant Was Driving at 80 Km/hr, 80,000
meters/3600 seconds = 22.2 m/s
If Defendant Was Driving at 72 Km/hr, 72,000
meters/3600 seconds = 20.0 m/s
If
Defendant Was Driving at 70 Km/hr, 70,000
meters/3600 seconds = 19.4 m/s
I Km = 1000 meters; 1 Hour = 3600 seconds
¨
If the defendant was driving at least 72 Km/hr, he
could reach Sprott St intersection in less than 2
seconds.
The
claimant's guess was that the defendant was driving
somewhere between 80 and 90 Km/hr.
Claimant’s Vehicle
How Many Meters the Claimant's Vehicle Could Have
Driven Per second?
If Claimant’s Vehicle Was Moving at 5 Km/hr, 5,000
meters/3600 seconds = 1.4 m/s
If Claimant’s Vehicle Was Moving at 10 Km/hr, 10,000
meters/3600 seconds = 2.8 m/s
¨
Claimant’s
vehicle moved 2 to 3 meters, from Position-1 to
Position-2 (See Photo # 9 & Photo # 6)),
before the accident occurred. If claimant’s vehicle
was moving at 5 Km/hr, it could take more than 2
seconds to drive 3 meters. In 2 seconds, the
defendant could have driven 40 meters all the way
from Canada Way to Sprott St. Because the Royal Oak
Southbound is a STEEP CURVE, the claimant could only
see defendant’s vehicle from rear-view mirror within
a few meters.
¨
SO
THERE WAS NOTHING THE CLAIMANT COULD HAVE DONE TO
AVOID ACCIDENT.
So the Defendant Could Have
Easily Avoided the Accident:
(i)
By simply stopping behind my vehicle and by waiting
until the road was clear, or
(ii) He could have stopped on the right
side of my vehicle before he cut my vehicle, or
(iii) He could have avoided the accident
by not cutting my vehicle, or
(iv) He could have driven slowly by
going away from my vehicle.
|
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Paragraph # 3
THE LAW,
Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia
SECTION: 158 PASSING ON RIGHT
I will explain the LAW, I will discuss the LAW, and
I will convince the Court the Defendant violated
Section 158.
THE DEFENDANT MADE THE FOLLOWING THREE RECKLESS
MANEUVERS
3a. At First The Defendant Failed to Stop Behind My
Vehicle,
Because
he was speeding excessively. I don’t have to prove
to the court with a video camera that he was
speeding.
Common sense will tell that he was speeding. If
he was not speeding, he could have easily stopped
behind my vehicle
and there wouldn’t have been any accident.
3b. Then He Decided to Drive to the Right Side of My
Vehicle,
Because he was trapped by the WIDE LANE or he was
tempted by that WIDE LANE.
3c. Then He Failed to Stop on the Right Side Again
Because he was speeding excessively. That High Speed
did not allow him to stop.
3d. And Then He Decided to Cut My Vehicle & Caused
Accident
Because the lane on the right side is obstructed,
and reached dead-end, and as he focused on going
ahead
of my vehicle, he decided to cut my
vehicle. When he did that, both vehicles collided
and accident occurred.
While Making Those Three Careless & Reckless
Maneuvers, The Defendant Violated Section 158,
Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia. I am going to
explain the LAW now.
3a.
THE LAW
Section 158, Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia,
Canada (Index)
http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/96318_00
(Scroll down to 158)
This Law "Section 158" Was Created to Protect the
Non-Aggressive Drivers Like Me When Aggressive
Drivers Like the Defendant are Passing On Right
Carelessly & Recklessly Without Obeying the Rules of
the Road.
This Section 158 is divided into 2 Subsections:
Subsection 1 & Subsection 2.
Subsection 1
has 3 clauses/exceptions & Subsection 2 has 2
clauses.
Subsection 1 has
three clauses/exceptions:
(a), (b), & (c). OK!
Subsection 2 has two clauses: (a) & (b)
When someone is passing on the right of another
vehicle, he/she must comply with at least 1 part of
Subsection1 and in addition, you must comply with
all parts of Subsection 2. OK!
|
|
|
If you ask me why the passing driver
should comply with at least one part,
the reason is: the LAW was written like
that.
You can see that from the way the LAW
was written (the LAW was written with
commas, OR & Period).
Subsection 1
After Part (a),
There is a Comma
After Part (b),
There is comma and OR
After Part (c),
There is a Period
That
means the driver passing on right MUST
comply with at least one part
(either part a, part b, or part c).
Subsection 2
A driver must not pass on the right:
a.
when the movement cannot be made safely,
or by driving the vehicle off the
roadway.
After Part (a),
There is a Comma and OR
After Part (b),
There is Period
That
means the driver passing on right MUST
comply with both clause (a) and clause
(b).
|
|
IMP:
Whether a driver complied with
Subsection 1 or not, he/she must comply
with Subsection 2
both
part (a) and Part (b).
If the
driver failed Section 158 2(a) or 158
2(b), that means the driver violated the
whole section. That is how the law was
written.
IMP:
That means, even if the driver compied
with Subsection 1 (suppose my vehicle
was signaling to left, then the driver
could have complied with Subsection 1),
it is not done yet, he must comply with
Subsection 2.
If the driver fails Subsection 2, even
though he/she complied with Subsection
1, the driver could still violate
Section 158 (because
the driver must not PASS ON RIGHT when
the movement cannot be made safely).
IF THE PASSING DRIVER FOLLOW THESE RULES
OF THE LAW EXACTLY AS THE LAW STATES,
THERE WON’T BE ANY ACCIDENT. IF THEY
DON’T FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE LAW, THEN
THERE WILL BE AN ACCIDENT. THE DRIVER
WHO IS NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES IS THE
ONE WHO IS CAUSING THE ACCIDENT.
Subsection 1
We will now go over Subsection 1 one by
one:
Clause (a), Clause (b) & Clause (c).
NOW let us see if the defendant complied
with Clause (a) of Subsection 1.
Section 158 1(a) / Clause (a)
(1) The driver of a vehicle must not
cause or permit the vehicle to overtake
and pass on the right of another
vehicle, except
(a) when the
vehicle overtaken
is making a left turn or its driver has
signalled his or her intention to make a
left turn,
The key phrase in Section 150 1(a) is “Vehicle
Overtaken.”
It is the “Vehicle Overtaken” that must
be signaling. Not the 1st
Vehicle. 1st Vehicle was not
the Vehicle Overtaken. 2nd
Vehicle was the Vehicle Overtaken.
The defendant under cross examination
admitted that my vehicle was not making
a left turn and my vehicle was not
signing to the right. He also admitted
that he overtook my vehicle and passed on my right.
Therefore the defendant violated
Section 150 1(a).
Section 158 1(b) / Clause (b)
Now let us see if the defendant complied
with Section 150 1(b) or Part b.
(1) The driver of a vehicle must not
cause or permit the vehicle to overtake
and pass on the right of another
vehicle, except
(b) when on a laned roadway there
is one or more than one unobstructed
lane on the side of the roadway on
which the driver is permitted to drive,
or
At first, I explained about “Laned
Roadway” & “Unobstructed Lane.” Laned
roadway means there must be two or more
lanes. Please see the Google map and
please see Photo # 3 & Photo # 4
(Claimant’s Binder). There were no LANE
MARKINGS on the road of Royal Oak
Southbound. The defendant just now
admitted that there was no LINE between
his vehicle and my vehicle when he
passed on my right. That means it was
not a lanes roadway. He also admitted
under cross-examination that Royal Oak
Southbound was a single lane traffic. He
also admitted that he passed on my right
even though it was not a laned roadway
and there was no unobstructed lane on my
right side (Royal Oak Southbound was a
wide lane but obstructed on the right
side).
Please also see the Trial Statement of
the Defendant, Paragraph # 5
After
waiting for a short period of time
behind Toyota, the Defendant decided
to
change lanes. He activated his
right-turn signal and checked his side
and
rearview mirrors. He confirmed that the
Toyota was stationary and then
pulled
into the right-hand lane.
Therefore the defendant violated
Section 158 1(b).
Section 158 1(c) / Clause (c)
Now let us see if the defendant complied
with Section 150 1(c) or Part c.
(1) The driver of a vehicle must not
cause or permit the vehicle to overtake
and pass on the right of another
vehicle, except
(c) on a one way street or a highway on
which traffic is restricted to one
direction of movement, where the roadway
is free from obstructions and is of
sufficient width for 2 or more lanes of
moving vehicles.
Royal Oak Southbound, even though it is
22 feet wide, is not a one-way street.
It is a two-way street. There was
southbound traffic and northbound
traffic simultaneously all the time. You
can see that in all photos and Google
maps of claimant’s binder and
defendant’s binder.
Please see Photo # 21 & Photo # 23.
Royal Oak Southbound is not a highway
(it is residential area), If it is a
highway, there wouldn’t be a Speed Limit
Sign with 50.
So the defendant did not comply with
this provision. He cannot pass on my
right using this provision of Section
158 1(c).
Speed Limit Sign
There is a
Speed Limit Sign just before
the Defendant entered the accident
scene, and just after he exited the
accident scene. The Speed Limit is 50
Km/h.
These two Speed Limit Signs indicate
that the Royal Oak Southbound where
accident occurred is not a highway.
Therefore the defendant did not comply
with the provisions of Section 158 1(c).
He cannot pass on my right using this
provision.
Subsection 2
Section 158 2(a) / Clause (a)
Now let us see if the defendant complied
with Section 150 1(c) or Part c.
(1) The driver of a vehicle must not
cause or permit the vehicle to overtake
and pass on the right of another vehicle
(a) when the movement cannot be made
safely, or
Law of Negligence is already
incorporated within this Section 158
2(a).
Law
of
Negligence:
The defendant failed to exercise the
standard duty of care for the safety of
my vehicle that a reasonably prudent
driver would have exercised in the same
or similar situation.
Therefore he failed the Safety Rule of
section 158 2(a).
When
he is passing on right, he should be
more cautious, and he should exercise
“Duty of Care”
towards other drivers, other vehicles &
pedestrians. He can pass on right only
when it is 100% safe. But he already
damaged my vehicle. He failed to
exercise safety rule, that means he
failed to exercise “Duty of Care.”
Therefore
he can
be found negligent.
That means
when he decided to pass on right, he
should plan ahead, PASS very cautiously,
and make sure that it is going to be
100% safe. He should not pass on right
when the movement cannot be made safely.
The driver while passing should not
damage other vehicles, should not hurt
other
drivers, cyclist and pedestrians. If
anything happens, the driver will be
held liable 100%.
In this case, the defendant already
damaged my vehicle, violating this
clause.
Section 158 2(b) / Clause (b)
Now let us see if the defendant complied
with Section 150 1(c) or Part c.
(1) The driver of a vehicle must not
cause or permit the vehicle to overtake
and pass on the right of another vehicle
(b) by driving the vehicle off the
roadway.
Please see
Photo # 9, Photo # 24 & Photo # 25 where
the lane was getting narrower.
The defendant was driving
an enormously large Jeep
(Please see Photo # 9 & Photo # 8). When
he passed on my right, we both heard
“bang.” When he heard the bang, he
looked back towards my vehicle. When he
did that the rear portion of his Jeep
moved closer to the curb, and the rear
right tire touched the sidewalk. Any
reasonable person can see that from the
Photo # 9 (accident scene) and Photo # 8
(defendant’s Jeep).
The defendant disobeyed the rules of
Section 158 2(a).
The
defendant disobeyed the rules of Section
158 2(b).
The defendant did not comply with
provisions of Section 158 1(c).
OVERALL CONCLUSION OF CLOSING ARGUMENTS, PARAGRAPH # 3
OVERALL
ASSESSMENT IS THAT THE DEFENDANT Mr.
William Lundholm violated Section 158
beyond a reasonable doubt
because of his own negligent driving
conduct.
Therefore he should be held liable one
100% for this accident.
|
THE MAJOR HIGHLIGHT OF THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS
WAS TO PROVE TO THE COURT THAT THE
DEFENDANT VIOLATED SECTION 158,
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
(As Explained Below)
|
|
Go to the Top |
The following document from
DriveSmartBC.ca explains the Sections 158 in an
easier manner.
But the Judge did not allow this into the evidence
because it was not a Government document.
This document is unnecessary as I have proved my
case using the Government law.
The following rules were
posted by ICBC on their website.
These rule are consistent with the Section 158,
Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia.
But the adjusters of ICBC do not seem to
follow these rules.
The adjuster of ICBC gave the defendant a FREE PASS
even though he violated their own rules.
The following Law of
Negligence & Tort Law were also used in the closing
arguments.
Go to the Top
|
|
|
|
|
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Paragraph #
4 |
|
Judgments and Decisions of Some Relevant
Cases
Rao Konduru Vs William P. Lundholm
Small Claim Registry File # 1345173
ABSTRACTS |
|
1. R. v. Dickson, 2003 BCSC 437 (CanLII)
Section 158,
Passing on Right, of Motor
Vehicle Act was discussed in detail.
A police officer gave a ticket to a
driver who was overtaking vehicle(s),
and passing on right contrary to
Section 158. The trial judge
convicted the driver, fined, and
suspended his driver’s license. The
driver appealed both conviction and
sentence, and the Supreme Court
dismissed the driver’s appeal.
2. Smeltzer v. Merrison,
2010
BCSC 2004 (In the Supreme Court)
The concept of Section 158 1(b) was
misunderstood and misused by the Supreme
Court trial judge who allowed the
defendant to pass on right on an
“unobstructed lane without lane
markings.” This decision was
later reversed by the Court of Appeals.
3. Smeltzer v. Merrison,
2012 BCCA 13 (In the Court of Appeals)
The concept of
Section 158 1(b) was established exactly
as the law says. Passing on right is
legal only when an “unobstructed lane
with proper lane markings” is available
on the right of overtaken vehicle.
The defendant, who passed on right on an
“unobstructed lane without lane
markings,” was found liable for the
accident by the Court of Appeals.
4. Baker v. Clark, 2013 BCSC 2044 (CanLII)
Passing on right and suddenly cutting a
vehicle off in an attempt to overtake it
must not be done when the movement
cannot be made safely. The defendant who
violated this rule was found 100% liable
for the accident by the Supreme Court
justice.
5. Sohn v. Mamedov, 2012 BCPC 55 (CanLII)
The defendant was found 100% liable for
the accident when the defendant’s
vehicle passed the claimant’s vehicle in
an attempt to overtake it, sideswiped on
the front portion of the claimant’s
vehicle, and damaged it.
|
|
Judgments and Decisions of Some Relevant
Cases
Rao Konduru Vs William P. Lundholm
Small Claim Registry File # 1345173
SUMMARIES |
|
1. R. v. Dickson, 2003 BCSC 437 (CanLII)
Page 5
July 12,
2001 Event took place in
Metroplolitan Area, Vancouver, BC.
March 12, 2003 Hearing took place
(Supreme Court of BC, Vancouver).
March 24, 2003 The Judgment was
announced (Supreme Court of BC).
In this case, the Section 158 was
discussed in detail. The Appellant Mr.
Dickson was riding his motorcycle and
overtook several vehicles “passing on
right” very closely within 6 inches
of several vehicles, including a Police
Cruiser, contrary to Section 158 of
Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia.
The motorcycle was traveling on the line
that separated the Officer’s lane from
the lane immediately to his right.
Police Officer Aitken who was driving
that Police Cruiser chased Mr. Dickson
down and gave him a ticket for the
violation of Section 158.
Mr. Dickson thought the ticket
unwarranted, and disputed it. The trial
judge His Worship Almond, JJP convicted
Mr. Dickson, and sentenced him to a fine
of $86 and a 60-day driving prohibition.
Unsatisfied with that result, Mr.
Dickson has appealed both conviction and
sentence.
Even though there was no accident
occurred, even though Mr. Dickson did
not exceed speed limits, and even though
Mr. Dickson did not hurt any driver or
damage any other vehicles, the Appeals
Court dismissed Mr. Dickson’s appeal
based on the traffic law that Mr.
Dickson has overtaken vehicles
passing on right contrary to
Section 158.
The Honourable Justice Mr. P. Rogers of
the Supreme Court of British Columbia
considered all provisions/exceptions of
Section 158. Mr. Dickson did not comply
with any of the 3 provisions: 158 1(a),
158 1(b), or 158 1(c).
And so
The Honourable Mr. Justice P. Rogers
dismissed Mr. Dickson’s appeal. Please
find enclosed the complete report.
2. Smeltzer v. Merrison, 2010 BCSC 2004
(CanLII)
Page
9
(In the
Supreme Court of British Columbia)
Nov 16, 2007 Accident Occurred on
222nd St, Maple Ridge, BC.
Dec 2 & 3, 2010
Hearing took place (Supreme Court of BC,
Vancouver).
Dec 3, 2010
The Judgment was announced (Supreme
Court of BC).
Please see Google Map to
Understand this Accident.
The defendant (Ms. Merrison) was
travelling on northbound and overtook
three or more vehicles by passing on
right as there was de-facto lane up
ahead. And the plaintiff (Ms. Smeltzer)
was travelling on the southbound, and
made a left hand turn through a “gap” in
the backed up Northbound
traffic intending to enter a parkade.
The plaintiff’s vision was blocked by a
large truck. At this time a collision
occurred.
The trial judge found that Ms.
Merrison was travelling in an
unobstructed de facto lane and
that Section 158 1(b) did not prohibit
her from
passing vehicles
on the
right. Here the trial judge
did not notice that the unobstructed
lane had no markings. Ms. Smeltzer was
found 100% at fault as the trial Judge
erred.
This decision was appealed, as the trial
judge did not apply the law exactly as
it says regarding “unobstructed lane”
and did not enforce the definition of
“laned roadway (a
roadway or part of a roadway that is
divided into two or more marked lanes
for the movement of vehicular traffic in
the same direction).”
The trial judge’s decision was later
reversed by the Court of Appeals (Please
see next case). Please find enclosed
the complete report.
3. Smeltzer v. Merrison, 2012 BCCA 13 (CanLII)
Page 13
(In the Court of
Appeals of British Columbia)
Nov 16, 2007 Accident Occurred on
222nd St, Maple Ridge, BC.
(Intersection: Probably 96 Ave, but not
mentioned in report)
Dec 8, 2011
Hearing took place (Appeals Court of BC,
Vancouver).
Jan 12, 2012
The Judgment was announced (Appeals
Court of BC).
Please see Google Map to
Understand this Accident.
The Appeals Court in Vancouver reversed
the Supreme Court decision after finding
that the defendant should not have been
passing on the right just because there
was a “de-facto” lane up ahead
as it was not an unobstructed “laned
roadway” with proper road markings,
and doing so in these circumstances Ms.
Merrison was negligent. Ms. Smeltzer’s
appeal was successful, and Ms. Merrison
was found liable for passing on right
violating Section 158 1(b).
The subsecton-1 of Section 158 prohibits
one vehicle passing another on the
right. There are only three
exceptions: Passing on the right is
permitted (a) when the overtaken vehicle
is signaling or turning left, (b) when
passing on an ”unobstructed laned
roadway” with proper lane markings,
or (c) when passing on a wide one-way
street or highway where room
permits. These three exceptions
are to be simultaneously qualified by
the subsection-2, which prohibits any
passing on the right (a) when the
movement cannot be made safely, or (b)
by driving the vehicle off the roadway.
Please find enclosed the complete
report.
3a. Smeltzer v. Merrison
(2012), 211 A.C.W.S. (3d) 490, 2012 BCCA
13
Annotated British
Columbia Motor Vehicle Act, S. 158, May
2013
Section 158 1(b)
does not permit a motorist to pass on
the right when there is only one lane,
regardless of the presence of what might
be called a second “de facto” lane up
ahead in the roadway. If it were
otherwise, drivers would be entitled to
pass on the right wherever the road is
sufficiently wide for two vehicles to
pass.
Drivers do not expect to be passed on
the right when they are not travelling
on a road with more than one designated
lane. They generally expect to be able
to turn off of the road to their right,
whether into intersecting streets or
driveways, or to pull over to the side
of the road or off the road altogether
without being obstructed by vehicles
passing on the right. (Very
Important!)
Claimant’s Remarks
WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM THIS CASE? We
learned that WIDE LANE is a trap, and do
not get trapped by a wide lane and pass
on the right. Make sure there is at
least one unobstructed lane with proper
makings on the right side on which the
driver is permitted to drive. If there
is a wide lane without makings, do not
pass.
If a police officer finds the driver
passing on right, he/she can give a
traffic violation ticket that may lead
to a fine and the driver’s license
suspension.
If an accident occurred while passing on
right, the driver could be held liable
for the entire accident.
4. Baker v. Clark, 2013 BCSC 2044 (CanLII)
Page 19
April 27,
2011 Accident Occurred near the
Intersection of
Spadina Ave
Eastbound and Edward St., Chilliwack,
BC.
Oct 15-18, 2013 Hearing took place.
Nov 08, 2013 Judgment was
announced in
the Supreme
Court of BC, New Westminster, BC.
This accident
occurred in Chilliwack, BC on April 27,
2011.
Mr. Baker was the plaintiff and Ms.
Clark was the defendant.
http://bccondos.net/citybuilding-/fairmont-on-spadina
(map
shows Spadina Ave)
Please see Photo # 3 of Claimant’s
Binder to understand this accident.
In this case, the defendant’s car
passed on the right-hand side of the
plaintiff’s taxi in an attempt to
overtake it, and then suddenly moved
from the
right-hand side into the path of
the plaintiff’s taxi without signaling,
and as a result both cars collided. The
defendant’s car cut the plaintiff’s
taxi, and was at 45 degrees angle when
the collision occurred.
Mr. Baker measured the lane width of
Spadina Avenue eastbound as 27 feet, and
six inches (while the Claimant (Rao
Konduru) in this case has measured the
width of Royal Oak Southbound lane as 22
feet).
After listening to all the facts from
both sides, the Honourable trial judge
concluded the following: The defendant
(Ms. Clark) did indeed change the
direction from Mr. Baker’s
right-hand side, and Mr. Baker’s
taxi was so close at hand he was unable
to avoid the collision, Therefore, I
find the defendant Ms. Clark was
negligent and wholly (100%) at fault for
the collision.
The plaintiff Mr. Baker was awarded
$30,000 for the general damages. He was
also awarded for wage loss, and special
expenses incurred. Please find enclosed
the complete report.
5. Sohn v. Mamedov, 2012 BCPC 55 (CanLII)
Page 25
Aug 19, 2010 Accident Occurred at
Kingsway & Hall Ave, Burnaby.
Jan 31, 2012 Hearing took place
in the Provincial Court of BC.
Small
Claims Court, Vancouver, BC.
Feb 20, 2012 Judgment was
announced.
The claimant (Mr. Sohn) was involved in
an accident with the defendant (Mr.
Mamedov) near to the intersection of
Kingsway & Hall Ave, Burnaby, BC.
The defendant’s vehicle passed the
claimant’s vehicle in an attempt to
overtake it, sideswiped on the front
portion of the claimant’s vehicle, and
damaged it. The Honourable trial judge
held the defendant liable for 100% of
the accident (while ICBC initially held
both drivers equally responsible). The
decision was based on the fact that the
defendant’s vehicle came close to the
claimant’s vehicle while attempting to
overtake it, and damaged the claimant’s
vehicle by the sideswiping motion.
In addition to the damage estimate to
the claimant’s vehicle ($1275.12), the
claimant (Mr. Sohn) was awarded $100 for
Small Claims Filing Fee, $60 for Service
Fees, $30 for Postage Paid, and $50 for
the ICBC Claims Assessment Review.
Please click on the following link for
the complete reports of all 5 cases (a
PDF file).
JUDGMENTS &
DECISIONS: Complete Reports (PDF-FILE)
|
| |
|
|
Go to the Top |
|
|
CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Paragraph # 5
COMPENSATION CLAIMED BY THE PLAINTIFF
 |
|
Go to the Top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPLAINT
LETTER SENT TO THE ICBC CEO
|
|
December 12, 2013
Page: 1 of 2
Mr. Mark Blucher
Interim President & CEO
ICBC
151 West Esplanade
North Vancouver, BC, V7M 3H9
Dear Mr. Mark Blucher:
RE: CONSPIRACY, WICKEDNESS & CROOKEDNESS OF THE
FOLLOWING ICBC ADJUSTERS AND EMPLOYEES
1. Laurie Derby (Supervisor/Manager,
Surrey Claim Centre)
2. Michael Sutcliffe (Claims Adjuster, North
Vancouver Claim Centre)
3. Kimberly Halliday (Claims Representative,
Surrey Claim Centre)
4. Thelma Keigher (Claims Representative,
Surrey Claim Centre)
5. Charles Kidd (Estimator, Surrey Claim
Centre)
Please take a close look at my
Claim # P872623-2,
and any reasonable person can uncover and believe that I have
been most miserably discriminated, cheated and ripped off by the
aforementioned five ICBC employees in Surrey Claim Centre and
North Vancouver Claim Centre. Knowing full well that it is
injustice, they did it all just for the fun, and to later talk
about it and laugh about it in leisure.
I personally believe that they ripped me off because of my race,
my strange name, my skin color, my accent and my LOOK. Sounded
that they don’t enjoy working as the decent and honest ICBC
employees, instead, they enjoy living with indecent and crooked
character that hurts people like me.
What Happened?
Refer to Claim # P872623-2. A rude hit & run driver hit my car
and ran away after passing through my right side in narrow
single lane traffic.
I honked 3 or more times, chased him and caught him and reported
the accident to ICBC. What ICBC has done? The
aforementioned employees of ICBC in Surrey Claim Centre helped
that rude, hit & run, lying and cheating driver willfully,
covered it up, and gave him a FREE PASS to get away from that
accident, and made me liable to pay in full. When I complained
about it, all of them together covered it up, supporting and
protecting that bad driver. And there was nothing I could do
about it.
They were so undereducated and live with carelessness and
recklessness that they cannot even read, understand, digest the
British Columbia law “Passing On Right Section 158” and
apply the law fairly to the driver who broke the law. Their
minds were so contaminated and filled with enormous hatred,
crookedness and wickedness towards a person like myself that
they cannot act honestly in a fair-minded manner except ripping
me off. Sounded that the easiest thing they can do is: JUST
RIP ME OFF and help the hit & run driver openly and directly
without any mercy. Acting honestly and evaluating a claim in
a fair manner is the most difficult thing for them to do. ALL
THEY CAN DO IS: RIP ME OFF AND SIT BEHIND THE CLOSED DOORS. THEY
DON’T EVEN CARE HOW MUCH EMOTUIONAL PAIN THEY CAUSED.
There is overwhelming evidence that the hit & run driver who
damaged my car broke the law Passing On Right Section 158.
Any reasonable person can see that he broke the law but those
aforementioned employees of the Surrey Claim Centre were blinded
by their own ignorance, wickedness and crookedness.
Page: 2 of 2
Suggestions To Improve ICBC Claim Centres
1.
Unfair practices of the adjusters and claim centre employees
(conspiracy, wickedness, crookedness based on the race, color,
accent and LOOK of a driver), while evaluating whose fault it
is, should be abolished through teaching ethics.
2.
When no witnesses came forward, immediately after the accident,
all drivers involved in the accident should be brought in to the
same claim centre and both vehicles
should be inspected and documented at the same time by the same
claims adjuster.
3.
When no witnesses came forward, immediately after the accident,
all drivers should be given an opportunity to dispute the claim
face to face in a round table with appropriate drawings and/or
photographs of the accident scene. Appropriate traffic law
applicable in that particular case should be enforced
immediately.
4.
Claim centre adjusters/employees should carefully discuss the
details of accident with both parties at the same time (not in
two separate dates). Careless and reckless decision without
understanding the accident scene can lead to injustice.
I am concerned, many innocent drivers probably are being ripped
off by crooked adjusters.
5. Teach Them
The Principle of Karma
You better teach ICBC Claim Centre Employees the Principle of
Karma as have been living with a lot of ignorance and
aggressiveness of insensitive nature. In their twisted minds,
they don’t even believe (as they have never been taught by their
racist parents) that life is a sequence and consequence of the
present life and all past lives, and their future life will be
determined based on their actions and accumulated Karma of all
their past lives and present life.
Based on The Principle of Karma, in their next lives, the
aforementioned employees of ICBC in Surrey Claim Centre will
born with either a black skin or brown skin with a thick accent
in a poor-looking family or neighborhood. Nobody will like them,
nobody will hire them and everybody will discriminate them and
treat them like pieces of trash. More particularly they will
be directly and openly cheated by their own Automobile Insurance
companies in every accident they may have. Thus they will be
facing a miserable life of their own. If they had any such fear
of “The Principle of Karma,” they would not act like they have
been acting (for example in my case).
Purpose of This Letter
ICBC should be ashamed of harboring this
kind of incompetent and unfair adjusters or employees and should
take immediate action. I wondered how they got jobs in ICBC and
how they got even their driver’s licenses. They should have been
properly trained and they should have been carefully taught
professional ethics while evaluating a claim. More
particularly, a supervisor must re-evaluate the claim
independently without being influenced by the crooked behavior
of the adjuster and claims representatives. My experience tells
me that the supervisor
Laurie Derby
of the Surrey
Claim Centre is an incompetent and unfit supervisor.
Sounded that supporting and protecting those
unfair adjuster/employee for her is far more important than
finding out the truth and making justice in a case. She is
undoubtedly an unfit supervisor.
Yours truly,
Rao Konduru
P.S.: Please don’t send me a letter filled with “LIES” to cover
up what they have done to me (It is a very common practice in
Canada).
|
Go to the Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTICE OF CLAIM (Filed by the
Claimant on July 31, 2013)
Rao Konduru Vs William P. Lundholm (Small Claim,
Page 2)
Plaintiff/Claimant
|
Defendant
|
|
Rao Konduru
720 Sixth St., Unit 171
New Westminster, BC, V3L 3C5
Ph: 604-xxx-xxxx (hidden) |
William P. Lundholm
1506-5051 Lougheed Hwy
Burnaby, BC, V5B 4T5
Ph: 604-xxx-xxxx (hidden) |
|
|
WHAT HAPPENED?
1. On June 1, 2013 at 1 pm, I was driving on Canada
Way from East to West and entered the Single-Lane
Traffic on Royal Oak Ave, driving from north to
south as I had doctor’s appointment. On the right
side of my car, there is the Entrance to Forest Lawn
Funeral Home. When I reached that spot, I sopped
behind a car that was trying to make left turn to
Sprott St with left-turn signal on. I was waiting
for the car in front of me to complete the left
turn.
2. The defendant was driving behind me, also came
from Canada Way and entered the Single-Lane
Traffic on Royal Oak Ave, driving from north to
south. The defendant was driving a large Jeep that
has very large tires made of thick hard rubber. I
was driving a small red car (1995 Corolla).
3. After the car in front of me completed the left
turn, I proceeded to drive ahead. The defendant
was driving very fast, became uncontrolled, failed
to shop behind my car, passed through the right-side
of my car, could not complete his passing on right
safely, and as a result caused accident. He
changed the driving angle abruptly making a curve in
a rush, thereby hitting tangentially on the right
side of my front-right bumper with his rear-left
tire. Because the size of his Jeep is too big, and
as the road ahead was narrower, he could not
complete his passing on right, and as a result
caused accident.
4. We both heard loud noise but he did not stop, and
continued running away at very high speed. When I
honked loud 3 times and chased him, he stopped and
walked backwards almost a block. I found him
confused and nervous. I argued immediately that it
was illegal to pass through right side on Single
Lane Traffic. Sounded to me that he realized
that it was his fault. We checked each other’s cars.
His Jeep and his very large rear-left tire, made of
thick hard rubber, had no damage. The right side of
the front-right bumper of my red car had damage, and
the headlight and signal light were dislocated. We
exchanged the license plate number, driver’s license
number and phone number.
5. I went to ICBC and reported the accident
immediately. The defendant did not go to ICBC. ICBC
sent him letters probably twice. After 5 or 6 weeks,
ICBC somehow reached him. I don’t know what he told
them on the phone or in person, ICBC unfairly
dismissed the case without resolving the issue of
damage to my car.
6. I therefore am suing the defendant for the damage
to my car.
7.
The Following Information is Available with the
Claimant:
a. Damage estimate ($1583.49) from a private body
shop.
b. Photographs of the damaged vehicle.
c. Photographs of the accident scene,
indicating Single-Lane Traffic.
d. British Columbia Law “Passing On
Right (Section 158).”
HOW MUCH?
a. Damage to my car (as estimated in a body shop)
$1583.49
b. Expenses $300.00 (Amended by a Judge on Mar 31, 2014)
Go to the Top |
|
|
|
Go to the Top |
|
|
|
|
|
TRIAL STATEMENT (Filed by the
Claimant on March 17, 2014)
Rao
Konduru Vs William P. Lundholm
(Statement of Facts, Page 1 of 3)
Small Claim Registry File # 1345173
Plaintiff/Claimant
|
Defendant
|
|
Rao Konduru
720 Sixth St., Unit 171
New Westminster, BC, V3L 3C5
Ph: 604-xxx-xxxx (hidden) |
William P. Lundholm
1506-5051 Lougheed Hwy
Burnaby, BC, V5B 4T5
Ph: 604-xxx-xxxx (hidden) |
What Happened In The Accident?
1.
On June 1, 2013 at 1 pm, I was driving on Canada Way
from East to West and entered the Single-Lane
Traffic on Royal Oak Ave, driving from north to
south as I had doctor’s appointment. As shown in
Photo # 1 (see
below),
on the right side of my small red car (1995 Corolla)
there is the Entrance to Forest Lawn Funeral Home,
on the left side of my small red car there is Sprott
St, and note that the road ahead is narrower. As
shown in Photo # 2, when I reached that spot, I
stopped behind another car that was trying to make
left turn to Sprott St with left-turn signal on. I
was waiting for that car in front of me to complete
the left turn. Photo #1 and Photo #2 were taken
after the accident in order to recreate the accident
scene.
2.
The defendant was driving a large jeep (2008 Jeep
Wrangler) behind me, also came from Canada Way and
entered the Single-Lane Traffic on Royal Oak
Ave, driving from north to south. The defendant’s
jeep has very large tires made of thick hard rubber.
Photo # 4 shows how the defendant’s large jeep
exactly looks like. Photo # 3 shows that the
defendant came with large jeep from Canada Way &
Royal Oak intersection. Photo #3 was taken after the
accident in order to recreate the accident scene.
Photo # 4 was taken from the Internet.
3.
After the car in front of me completed the left
turn, I proceeded to drive ahead. The defendant
was driving behind me very fast, lost control,
failed to stop or slow down behind my car, overtook
my car through the right-side, and merged in front
of my car that was moving into the narrow lane, and
caused accident. He changed the driving angle
abruptly making a curve in a rush, thereby hitting
tangentially on the right side of my front-right
bumper with his rear-left tire. Because he was
driving a very large jeep, and as the road ahead was
narrower, he could not complete his passing on right
safely, and as a result caused accident.
4.
We both heard loud noise but he did not stop, and
continued running away at very high speed. When I
honked loud 3 times and chased him, he stopped and
walked back almost half a block. I found him
confused and nervous. I argued immediately that it
was illegal to pass through right side on Single
Lane Traffic. He nodded his head indicating that
he realized that it was his fault. We checked each
other’s cars. His jeep and his very large rear-left
tire, made of thick hard rubber, had no damage. The
right side of the front-right bumper of my red car
had damage, and the headlight and signal light were
dislocated. He did not have any pen and paper. I
provided him with the pen and paper, and we
exchanged information such as the license plate
number, driver’s license number and phone number. I
asked him if he could consider repairing my car in a
private body shop. He again nodded his head
indicating “yes.” I understood from his
facial expressions that he admitted his fault and
that he agreed to repair my car. But within a few
seconds, he changed his mind, acted like he was in a
rush, and ran away without confirming anything. No
witnesses came forward.
What Happened In ICBC?
5.
Because the defendant was found to be suspicious, I
called ICBC and reported the accident immediately on
the same day (June 1, 2013). ICBC gave me an
appointment with the adjuster on June 5, 2013, and I
went to ICBC and explained everything to the
adjuster. The defendant did not report the accident
and did not go to ICBC immediately. I kept phoning
ICBC every week. ICBC said they sent him letters
twice, and still the defendant was not responding.
After 3 weeks, ICBC somehow got in touch with the
defendant. The defendant finally went to ICBC and
reported the accident on June 24, 2013.
Rao
Konduru Vs William P. Lundholm
(Statement of Facts, Page 2 of 3)
Small Claim Registry
File # 1345173
What Happened In ICBC?
(Continued)
6.
When the defendant went to ICBC on June 24, 2013, he
told ICBC ALL THE LIES:
a. He told ICBC that he stopped behind my car
(but he actually did not stop).
b. He told ICBC that he stopped immediately
after the accident (but he did not stop
after the accident. He actually stopped
after I honked 3 times and chased him).
c. He told ICBC that he refused to repair my
car because it was not his fault (at the time of
accident, he actually agreed that it was
his fault and agreed to repair my car).
I still don’t know what happened within the ICBC
regarding this case. ICBC unfairly dismissed the
case without resolving the issue of the damage to my
car. And there was nothing I could do about it. I
talked to the supervisor over the phone but she did
not help me.
How Much Is The Amount Being Claimed?
7.
Total Amount Being Claimed =
$1583.49 (damage) + $300 (expenses) = $1883.49
a. Damage to my car, as estimated in a private
body shop = $1583.49
b.
In addition to the damage to my car, I spent more
than $300 working with this case:
(i) I spent more than 20 man-hours working with
this case.
(ii) I served court papers to the
defendant twice and paid for the Registered Mail.
(iii) I went to ICBC many times and
spent money for gas & parking.
(iv) I went to Small Claims Court many
times and spent money for gas & parking.
(v) I went to Courthouse library
numerous times and spent money for gas & parking.
(vi) I went to see several lawyers and
spent money for gas & parking.
(vii) I spent money for taking and
developing the photographs.
(viii) I spent money for preparing the
documents, laser printing and photocopying.
What Documents Are Enclosed?
8.
The following documents are enclosed with this Trial
Statement:
a. Photographs of the accident scene and
claimant’s vehicle.
Photo # 1, Photo # 2 and Photo # 3
b. Photograph of the defendant’s vehicle
(Photo # 4).
c. Photographs of the damaged vehicle
of the claimant.
d. Damage estimate ($1583.49)
from a private body shop.
e. Claimant’s Statement to ICBC.
f. Defendant’s Statement to ICBC.
g. Defendant’s Reply to the Notice of
Claim (served by the claimant).
h. (i) Passing On Right (Section 158),
Motor Vehicles Act, Victoria, BC.
(ii)
Passing On Right & Merging,
“Rules
of The Road”
from ICBC.com Website.
(iii)
Application of Section 158 1(a) to 3 Vehicles,
DriveSmartBC.ca Website.
How Can The Claimant Prove His Case?
9.
Please refer to the following two documents
enclosed:
a. Defendant’s Statement to ICBC, and
b. Defendant’s Reply to the Notice of
Claim (served by the claimant).
In these 2 documents, the defendant already admitted
in writing that he passed through the right side of
the claimant’s car at the scene of the accident, in
front of the Forest Lawn Funeral Home, as shown in
Photo # 1. The defendant argued that he was
not at fault by passing through the right side of
the claimant’s car. Now it is the Small Claims
Court’s duty to enforce the motor vehicles act in
order to make justice in this case. Please read
through the next page (page 3) where the claimant
explains how the defendant broke the traffic laws
and traffic rules.
Rao
Konduru Vs William P. Lundholm
(Statement of Facts, Page 3 of 3)
Small Claim Registry
File # 1345173
How Can The Claimant Prove His Case?
(Continued)
10.
Please refer to the following three documents
enclosed:
(i) Passing On Right (Section 158),
Motor Vehicles Act, Victoria, BC.
(ii)
Passing On Right & Merging,
“Rules
of The Road”
from ICBC.com Website.
(iii)
Application of Section 158 1(a) to 3 Vehicles,
DriveSmartBC.ca Website.
Passing On Right (Section 158)
is divided into 2 sub-sections as shown below:
Sub-Section # 1 of Section 158
(1) The driver of a vehicle must not cause or permit
the vehicle to overtake and pass on the right of
another vehicle, except
(a) when the vehicle overtaken is making a left turn
or its driver has signalled his or her intention to
make a left turn,
The claimant (Rao Konduru) was not making left
turn and did not give any
signal to the left. But the
defendant (William Lundholm) overtook the claimant’s
car by passing through the
right in the Single Lane Traffic, and caused
accident.
By
the time the defendant reached the claimant’s car,
the other car already left the scene.
So
the defendant broke this part of the law of Section
158 1(a).
(b) when on a laned roadway there is one or more
than one unobstructed lane on the side of the
roadway on which the driver is permitted to drive,
or
This part of the law is not applicable in this
particular case.
(c) on a one way street or a highway on which
traffic is restricted to one direction of movement,
where the roadway is free from obstructions and is
of sufficient width for
2 or more lanes of moving vehicles.
This part of the law is not applicable in this
particular case.
Sub-Section #2 of Section 158
(2) Despite subsection (1), a driver of a vehicle
must not cause the vehicle to overtake and pass
another vehicle on the right
(a) when the movement cannot be made safely, or
The defendant (William
Lundholm) can pass through the right side of
the claimant’s car only
when it is one hundred percent safe. That means
if anything happens, the
defendant should be held liable for the entire
accident.
So the defendant also broke this part of the law of
Section 158.
(b) by driving the vehicle off the roadway.
The defendant (William Lundholm) while passing
through the right side of the
claimant’s car used the
sidewalk. The rear-right tire of the defendant’s car
was on
the sidewalk when the
accident occurred. Please see Photo # 1.
Any reasonable person can
believe that it would be impossible to pass through
the right side without using
sidewalk, especially with that large vehicle
(2008 Jeep Wrangler) and in
that narrow lane when claimant’s car was moving.
So the defendant also broke this part of the law of
Section 158.
Merging Rule, Rules of the Road
(from IBCB.Com Website)
The defendant (William Lundholm) also broke
merging rule. He went to the right
side of the lane, which is
an obstructed area, and then merged back into the
left
side of the lane, which was
getting narrower. At this time, the claimant had the
right-of-way to go ahead.
The defendant was supposed to wait on the right side
until the claimant’s car was
gone completely. But the defendant, with a large
jeep, merged into the left
side of the lane in front of the claimant’s moving
car,
in a rush, and caused
accident.
The Claimant (Rao Konduru) requests the Honorable
Judge to enforce the aforementioned laws, and please
hold the defendant (William Lundholm) responsible
for 100% of the accident. |
Photo # 1
Photo # 2
Photo # 3
Photo # 4
Go to the Top |
|
|
|
|
|
TRIAL STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT
Received from the Defendant's Lawyer on April 3, 2014.
This Statement Was Filled with False Information
(see following pages).
Go to the Top |
|
THE PLAINTIFF/CLAIMANT FOUND THAT
THE TRIAL STATEMENT OF THE
DEFENDANT
WAS FILLED WITH FALSE INFORMATION
|
|
PLAINTIFF/CLAIMANT’S CROSS-EXAMINATION
There are 6 paragraphs in the Trial
Statement of the Defendant (See previous
document, scroll up one page).
Paragraph # 2
FLASE INFORMATION
Royal Oak has two northbound lanes and
two southbound lanes.
THE FACT:
Royal Oak Southbound has one lane only,
not two lanes, though Northbound is
divided into 2 lanes when approaching
the Canada Way intersection.
Paragraph # 3
FALSE INFORMATION
He made a left turn onto Royal Oak,
travelling Southbound in the
left hand lane.
THE FACT:
Royal Oak Southbound does not have any
such left hand lane. Royal Oak
Southbound just has one lane, and is the
Single Lane Traffic.
Paragraph # 4
FALSE INFORMATION
The first vehicle signaled a left turn.
THE FACT:
There is no way the driver of the
3rd vehicle would have seen
with his naked eyes and confirmed that
the left-turn signal of 1st
vehicle is flashing, as the 2nd
vehicle would block the driver’s vision.
Paragraph # 5
FALSE INFORMATION
After waiting for a period of time
behind the Toyota, the Defendant decided
to change lanes.
THE FACT:
There are no “two lanes.” Changing
lanes is absurd on Royal Oak
Southbound. Utterly false information.
Paragraph # 5
FALSE INFORMATION
He activated his right-turn signal and
checked his side and rearview mirrors.
He confirmed that Toyota was stationary
and then pulled into the right hand
lane.
THE FACT:
He cannot do that unless the vehicle
ahead (2nd vehicle) was
turning left or signaling. So the
defendant made a mistake.
There is no such right hand lane.
Even though the claimant’s vehicle was
not turning left, not signaling, the
defendant passed on right.
Paragraph # 6
FALSE INFORMATION
The Claimant pulled into the
right-hand lane, causing the
front bumper of Toyota to
collide
with the rear left wheel of the Wrangler.
THE FACT:
Again, there is no such right-hand lane.
Claimant did not pull into the
right-hand lane. Claimant’s vehicle was
moving straight ahead. Defendant’s Jeep
passed on right in single lane traffic.
Claimant’s vehicle had no damage on the
front side of front bumper. Claimant’s
vehicle was sideswiped on the right
side, starting from fender, all the way
through the bumper. Please see
Defendant’s Binder, Tag # 6. There are
17 pages (17 photos). In pages 9 through
17 (9 photos), Claimant’s Vehicle had
damage on the right side, consistent
with passing on right.
CLAIMANT’S CONCLUSION:
Almost all paragraphs of the Trial
Statement of the Defendant contain false
information.
This is not a Statement
of Facts. The Plaintiff/Claimant
expected that the the Judge would close
the case and render the verdict to the
Plaintiff based this Trial Statement
alone, but the Judge did not allow this
document into the evidence.
JUDGE'S DECISION:
The Judge did not allow this document
into the evidence because the defendant
did not prepare this document.
The defendant's lawyer
prepared this document as a response to
the Plaintiff's Trial Statement, and
filed in the court in a rush. The Judge
said she won’t look into the “the Trial
Statement of the Defendant” written by
the lawyer. It is not a serious document.
Whatever the defendant testifies on the
witness stand counts.
The Trial Statement written by the
defendant's lawyer
does not count. So the Judge disallowed this document.
|
|
|
Go to the Top |
|
|
|
DOCTOR'S LETTER
The following
letter from doctor's clinic confirms that the
plaintiff had a doctor's appointment at 1:20 pm on
June 1st, 2013.
The plaintiff had an accident at Royal Oak
Southbound & Sprott St intersection at 1 pm on June
1st, 2013.
The doctor's clinic is located on the south
direction, suggesting the fact that the plaintiff's
vehicle was not
making a left turn or signaling to the left but
going straight ahead in the direction of south.
The plaintiff told
the Judge: If the the defendant takes the stand
today and tells the court that he passed
on my right because my vehicle was signaling to the
left, please do not believe him; my vehicle was not
signaling
to the left, my vehicle was going straight ahead
because my doctor's clinic was located straight
ahead.
 |
|
Go to the Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Return to Previous
Page
.gif)
|
Continued Next Page
.gif)
|
| |
|
|
.gif){kind=small}
