Some people don’t take responsibility for their mistakes.
In this case, it was the owner of the Victorian sign company who sued someone for failing.
I’ve been perusing the BC Civil Settlement Tribunal’s decisions and found a case from 2022 that puzzles me. Courts handle many small claims in disputes between individuals or businesses ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars. The resentment displayed between the parties is simply wild.
Victoria’s controversy began after someone hired a local company to make lawn signs that read “Happy 80th Birthday” for local seniors.
Sounds easy, right?
The problem started after the company put up a sign on the wrong lawn. This is a house adjacent to an actual person celebrating a birthday.
If it were me, I would take the L and move on from there, but this Victorian company was reluctant to do that.
The company claims a Victorian resident who accidentally placed the sign on his lawn removed it and bagged it, but damaged it in the process. He accused the occupants of doing so on purpose, saying he “torn” the sign.
The company was seeking $2,850 for damage to the sign and for the loss of having to refund the person who hired the company in the first place.
The accused resident was to counterclaim for $3,000, alleging “mental distress and anxiety” from the incident.
It was hard to read the entire court decision. It looks like the company that had to refund the original customer got mad and decided to punish the innocent homeowner who didn’t ask for the giant sign left on the lawn.
The court arbiter said it had to determine whether the sign was genuinely damaged, whether the homeowner was liable to pay for the damage, and whether the homeowner truly suffered “mental distress.” (They also claimed the company was encroaching on her property, but the decision says this is an unreasonable claim.)
On the first point, the decision states that the homeowner “did not inadvertently or recklessly ‘shove’ the sign into the garbage bag.”
In fact, the decision states that the sign appears to have been “neatly folded” although it was technically damaged in the process.
The company’s claims were then dismissed, and at this point I needed a break to lower my blood pressure with the whole childishness.
As for the homeowner’s claim of “emotional distress,” the ruling claimed she had a “nightmare” from the incident, which probably required medication, but a compelling case requiring financial damage. He said there was no evidence.
Therefore, both claims are dismissed, which I feel is reasonable.
Did someone make a mistake and it exploded?
I hope those involved have learned from the experience.
Chris Campbell is editor at Black Press. You can follow him on Twitter @shinebox44.
Do you have any story tips? Email: email@example.com.
Please follow us twitter and Instagram, and like us on Facebook.