• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Claim vs a construction company

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

compussr

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
CA

A month ago, I was driving home around 1am and went through a construction zone on the 210 freeway. 3 lanes were left open, 3 lanes were closed. While going through the zone, a construction cone appeared in the live lane and I was unable to avoid it. The front end of the car was damaged, and the damage cost was $1500. Fog lights, bumper and bottom cover had to be replaced.

When i filed a claim against caltrans, the claim was denied because they said the construction was handled by a contractor company.

I received a call today from the contractor saying the claim will not be paid because the cone was knocked out by a motorist. The representative from the company stated that if the cones were within reach, they'd put it back. However the cones were out in the live lane, and to get the cones they'd had to go out with a "crash truck", so they were just left there. He insisted that the responsibility lies with the motorist who hit the cones, not them.

So what should be done in my case? Do I have a shot in the small claims court?
 


Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
CA

A month ago, I was driving home around 1am and went through a construction zone on the 210 freeway. 3 lanes were left open, 3 lanes were closed. While going through the zone, a construction cone appeared in the live lane and I was unable to avoid it. The front end of the car was damaged, and the damage cost was $1500. Fog lights, bumper and bottom cover had to be replaced.

When i filed a claim against caltrans, the claim was denied because they said the construction was handled by a contractor company.

I received a call today from the contractor saying the claim will not be paid because the cone was knocked out by a motorist. The representative from the company stated that if the cones were within reach, they'd put it back. However the cones were out in the live lane, and to get the cones they'd had to go out with a "crash truck", so they were just left there. He insisted that the responsibility lies with the motorist who hit the cones, not them.

So what should be done in my case? Do I have a shot in the small claims court?
You hit a stationary object. You were at fault. Had you been driving at a speed appropriate for conditions, you would have been able to avoid the cone. Before you claim that you were doing the speed limit (or some variation of that excuse), please keep in mind that you hit an object that you could not see in time to avoid...that means you were traveling too fast for conditions.
 

compussr

Junior Member
It was after midnight, the cone was knocked over so the headlights were not reflecting off it's orange sides. it wasn't like the cone was standing up right.

And there wasn't any special construction zone speed restriction on the freeway, I drove past it every night for a week before this happened.
 

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
How long was the cone in the live lane before you hit it? (And food for thought - how do you intend to prove your answer to this question in court?)
 

compussr

Junior Member
How long was the cone in the live lane before you hit it? (And food for thought - how do you intend to prove your answer to this question in court?)
could be a while. the area where it happened is about half a mile before the area where the work was being done. And in the contractor's words, even if it was in the live lane, they would not go get it unless they have a crash truck.

so

1, the area was not being monitored by the construction personnels (could be negeligence?) and

2, when i drove by the area, there weren't any crash truck visible, just some pick up and dump trucks (no knowledge of the situation and no intend to fix the problem)
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
It was after midnight, the cone was knocked over so the headlights were not reflecting off it's orange sides. it wasn't like the cone was standing up right.

And there wasn't any special construction zone speed restriction on the freeway, I drove past it every night for a week before this happened.
The speed you were traveling doesn't matter with regard to a restriction. The fact that you did not see the object in time to avoid it shows that you were traveling too fast for conditions. YOU are responsible for hitting it.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
2, when i drove by the area, there weren't any crash truck visible, just some pick up and dump trucks (no knowledge of the situation and no intend to fix the problem)
So, you state and admit they had no knowledge of the cone being in the active lane. Just how do you propose they are liable for such a situation then? As well, you have no idea how long the cone was there. Maybe the car just before you knocked it into the active lane. Do you suggest they must have men stationed at enough positions so they can see the entire area constantly and correct a problem immediately?
 

compussr

Junior Member
The fact that you did not see the object in time to avoid it shows that you were traveling too fast for conditions.
I find it hard to agree with you. If the object in this case was a parked car, then yes, I was probably going too fast.

I don't think the same thing can be said about a 10 inches by 10 inch base of a cone that is black and unreflective?

Let's say I saw it, and there was a car next to me so I was unable to change lane and I hit the cone. Would that still be my fault?

The other hypothetical alternative would be something like, I stopped short of the cone, and before I can move over to the next lane, I get rear ended causing a chain reaction. That would be even worse.
 

compussr

Junior Member
So, you state and admit they had no knowledge of the cone being in the active lane. Just how do you propose they are liable for such a situation then? As well, you have no idea how long the cone was there. Maybe the car just before you knocked it into the active lane. Do you suggest they must have men stationed at enough positions so they can see the entire area constantly and correct a problem immediately?
The key point is, they were not going to get the cone even if they knew about it, because it's in the active lane, and they don't have a crash truck on hand. And from the sound of it, they weren't about to send a truck to pick up a few cones.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
The key point is, they were not going to get the cone even if they knew about it, because it's in the active lane, and they don't have a crash truck on hand. And from the sound of it, they weren't about to send a truck to pick up a few cones.
"from the sound of it." So, you are guessing their intent but have nothing to support your conclusion, right?

, they would not go get it unless they have a crash truck
2, when i drove by the area, there weren't any crash truck visible,
at 1 am you could see their entire area where they might have had a crash truck setting? In your claim of their statement, they did not deny having a crash truck, only they must use one to retrieve the cone. In the dark, unless you have some special night vision, you could not have possibly seen everything so, how do you prove anything?

If you believe you can overcome the unanswerable questions, file a claim.
 

Dave1952

Senior Member
You're clearly unhappy with the advice that you are receiving. Look in your local phone book for auto accident attorneys who free initial consults. See if any buddy gets excited about your case.

Good luck
 

compussr

Junior Member
You're clearly unhappy with the advice that you are receiving.
:eek:


No, you took it the wrong way. It's about presenting arguments and cross checking to if there is one valid one that can hold up in court. It's just a back n forth process, the other two guys were thinking in favor of the contractor and I'm trying to come up arguments for myself, and that made it a very useful exchange.

It's not about find people who would agree with me here. That, would not be very helpful in my preparation.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
No, I wasn't thinking in favor of the contractor. You have to prove your case. The contractor doesn't have to prove anything. All he has to do is defend your cause of action, which is lacking.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top