Autobiography of Rao Konduru


 

 



Rao M. Konduru
BTech,MEng,MS,PhD,DSc,PEng



 

 

 

 

         

 

Small Claim

 

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

 
 


 

OPENING ARGUMENTS

 

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

 

 
 


 


CLOSING ARGUMENTS

 

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
2
a. 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


Expenses Incurred While Working With This Small Claim








Receipts of All Expenses (PDF File)


The Judgment & Decision
The Court Ruled that the Defendant Was Fully Responsible
(100% Liable) for This Accident. And that the Plaintiff's Vehicle
Should Be Repaired by the ICBC (Insurance Corporation of British
Columbia) and that the Costs Incurred Should Be Paid by the Defendant.



 

Go to the Top

 
 


 

APPENDIX-I

 

 

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? T
he 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
 
 


 

APPENDIX-II

 

                                     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
 

 

 
 


 

APPENDIX-III

 

EXTRA PHOTOS SHOWN TO THE JUDGETO PROVE THAT
Royal Oak Southbound Was A Single Lane Traffic







THE FOLLOWING PHOTOS WERE SHOWN TO THE JUDGE TO PROVE THAT
THERE WAS A SPEED LIMIT SIGN AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE ACCIDENT SCENE
AND AT THE EXIT OF THE ACCIDENT SCENE.
THE DEFENDANT, BY SPEEDING BEYOND SPEED LIMITS, VIOLATED BOTH SIGNS.










THE DEFENDANT, WHILE PASSING ON RIGHT, TRANSITIONED FROM WIDE LANE
TO NARROW LANE AND FORCED HIMSELF TO CUT MY VEHICLE AND CAUSED ACCIDENT
.

 
Go to the Top
 
 


 








 

 

          Return to Previous Page
            
      

 

                            Continued Next Page
                     
    
 

 


 

 
 

COPYRIGHT
Copyright © by Rao Konduru
    
      
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American copyright laws.