A customer who decided against buying a Chevrolet Corvette during a test drive still owed the dealership more than US$12,000 after driving it into a concrete barrier at a truck stop.
Kirby Sewell lost his appeal on October 8, 2026, when the British Columbia Supreme Court upheld a small claims judgment in favor of Gardner Chevrolet Buick GMC in Hope. The original award amounted to approximately US$12,103, including interest and costs.
Sewell was a long-standing customer who had ordered the high-performance Corvette through the dealership. Its anticipated sale price was approximately US$85,200, but it arrived without expected performance enhancements.
He took it for a test drive on June 12, 2024. Neither side raised questions about insurance, and no insurance documentation was requested or provided before he drove away.
All amounts are approximate U.S. dollar equivalents, converted using the Bank of Canada’s October 15, 2026, exchange rate.
The Truck Stop
During the drive, Sewell stopped at the Flying J truck stop to inspect the Corvette and take pictures. He parked in the area generally used by trucks rather than passenger cars, near a lamp standard and a concrete barrier with protruding rebar.
The trial judge accepted that passenger cars sometimes used that area. She found that Sewell’s choice of parking spot did not, by itself, make him negligent.
The judge described an impatient semi-truck driver who appeared to object to the parking spot. Sewell quickly got back into the Corvette to move it and struck the barrier, significantly damaging the passenger side.
His own photographs became evidence at trial. The judge found that they showed the barrier, sufficient lighting, and enough room to drive around the obstruction. The Corvette’s low ride height did not reduce his obligation to drive safely.
Gardner spent approximately US$7,000 repairing the car, disclosed the repairs to subsequent buyers, and sold it for approximately US$81,000. After a two-day trial in May and October 2025, the dealership won compensation for repairs and the car’s diminished value.
Back in Court
On appeal, Sewell challenged the trial judge’s handling of negligence, evidence, and procedural fairness. Justice Caldwell found no basis to overturn the judgment.
Sewell also argued that section 86 of British Columbia’s Motor Vehicle Act effectively made him a dealership employee because he had possession of the car with its consent, giving him insurance coverage for the damage.
Caldwell agreed with the trial judge that the provision was intended to protect innocent third parties. Sewell’s lawyer could provide no case supporting the proposed interpretation.
“It is not intended to protect a negligent driver from their own negligence,” Caldwell wrote.
The dealership was also awarded its appeal costs at Scale A, with Caldwell assessing the matter as having little or less-than-ordinary difficulty.