B.C. man ordered to pay damages for smashing Smart car window during road rage incident

A Smart Fortwo is seen in this image from shutterstock.com

A man who smashed the window of a woman’s Smart car during a road rage incident with a former co-worker has been ordered to pay $1,245 in damages by the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal.

According to a decision issued Thursday, Allison Lia Blank sought $1,750 to repair the damage caused by James Ashcroft on Feb. 13, 2023.

Ashcroft admitted to breaking the window, but argued he did so because Blank’s spouse—who was driving the car at the time—grabbed his arm and began rolling up the window in an attempt to injure, an explanation the tribunal ultimately dismissed on a balance of probabilities.

The incident

While Blank owns the Smart car, her spouse, referred to as DC in the decision, was driving the vehicle at the time and she did not witness the incident.

DC provided a written statement to the tribunal saying the incident began when Ashcroft, his former co-worker driving a Mustang, swerved at him on the highway.

“When DC later stopped at a gas station, (he says) Mr. Ashcroft followed, exited his vehicle and approached, shouting slurs and obscenities,” wrote tribunal member Micah Carmody.

“DC says Mr. Ashcroft kicked the car and then started to violently pull and punch the driver’s side window until it shattered. DC says Mr. Ashcroft then tried to grab DC’s cell phone.”

Ashcroft, in turn, recounted that DC first intentionally cut him off on the highway, recorded him on the cell phone as they pulled into the gas station, and threw a coffee at the Mustang.

“In response, Mr. Ashcroft says he reached into the Smart car to grab the phone. He says DC grabbed his wrist and started to roll up the window, deliberately trying to injure him. Mr. Ashcroft says in response, he smashed the window by hitting it,” the decision reads.

Carmody said Ashcroft did not any provide evidence of a flung coffee cup or aggressive driving and recording on the part of DC. In addition, Ashcroft said he called police but did not provide a statement, while Blank did submit a police report in her evidence, which indicated CCTV video of the gas station existed.

“If Mr. Ashcroft wanted to prove he smashed the window to avoid injury, I would expect him to have obtained that footage or to explain why he could not. He has done neither here,” Carmody said.

“Mr. Ashcroft admits he followed DC to find out who was driving the car. He chose to escalate the conflict both by following DC to the gas station and by reaching into the car.”

The tribunal member concluded that Ashcroft was the aggressor in the situation and that he had not established a defence, ruling him liable for the damages caused.

The damages

Blank claimed $1,120 in damages to reimburse an inspection and repair of the driver’s side window, which the tribunal ordered Ashcroft to pay.

She also claimed $629 to replace a side mirror and interior door handle, but Ashcroft denied damaging anything other than the window and Blank did not provide any evidence to the contrary, so Carmody dismissed that part of the claim.

In addition, Blank asked for $1,000 for taxis while the Smart car was out of commission, but similarly did not give evidence to support those costs, and Carmody found them unproven.

In total, the tribunal ordered Ashcroft to pay Blank $1,245 for the damages, plus CRT fees.