Small claims about parking lot accident

[Levgre]

Hi, I'm in Wisconsin.


So I hit an electric pole exiting a parking lot, I couldn't see it because of the glare of the sun. I had no idea what I had impacted with, since the impact was low I thought I ran over something. I was far away from the sidewalk where most obstructions are.

So I think I want to file for partial fault against the parking lot owner (or maybe the city for the pole?) The reasoning be that the parking lot was very cramped and small, and the electric pole was well in the parking lot obstructing the exit, and no cement ground/fence etc. protecting a car from the pole.

I know Parking lot owners can't just be blamed for accidents caused by sun glare, but I think they were partially responsible for dangerous, cramped parking lot design. And the pole is in a very unusual place, if a person stood in a parking lot nonstop, restricting the exit space, it would certainly be a cause for concern.


To be cautious in a parking lot I was driving to the right, staying AWAY from the cars which may exit their parking spot, driving 4-5 mph yielding to cars or pedestrians, and I hit the pole just about on my right blinker.The parking lot is quite small and cramped, so by putting myself a safe distance away from the cars I was put in the path of the pole which is 3 ft past the sidewalk, just sitting in the lot.
I guess a pole is never a problem when people can see it, but irregardless it makes a much smaller than ideal exit.

Here are the pictures:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/Levgre/PICT1710.jpg

This is the exit space I went through, I was toward the right, staying away from the car, getting ready to turn left. Being to the right was beneficial because I had more visibility to where I was turning, also. Plus backing out the parking spot (I was parked perpendicular to the visible car) placed me pretty far to the right by default. It is counter intuitive to then turn left closer to the cars.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/Levgre/PICT1709.jpg

Just to show how directly the glaring sun is aligned with the pole, looking at the pole means you look at the sun.


And damage! To car and pole.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/Levgre/PICT1714.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/Levgre/PICT1715.jpg

Any advice for bringing this to court? I will be taking more pictures of the parking lot. I honestly do think I was being a responsible driver and the parking lot design made an untypical dangerous situation for whoever happened to pull out of this exit when the sun is rising or setting. With how much attention parking lots require to avoid hitting other cars or pedestrians, adding further complications for the driver is wrong. There is a reason there is 'safe space' designed into most parking lots, so drivers have margins of error. There wasn't a very big margin with the size of the exit, here.

 

[latigo]

It took me a minute or two - the glare of the monitor screen with all this bright white background - but I finally see your point:

"When the vision of one operating a motor vehicle is impaired due to no fault of their own, the Rules of the Road and caution go out the bloody window and he or she is entitled to proceed with impunity and in disregard of loss of life, limb and property."

But its a flippin’ joke . . . . right?!

 

[justalayman]

you will lose.



You are responsible for yourself. Very simple premise. If you believed you were not capable of navigating the lot, pole and all, you could have refrained from using the lot. You entered the lot aware of the pole therefore you accepted the conditions of the lot.

I was put in the path of the pole which is 3 ft past the sidewalk, just sitting in the lot.

That's too bad. If it was one of those poles that move all around the lot you might have a shot at this but since it was just sitting there, you will lose.

 

[Levgre]

It took me a minute or two - the glare of the monitor screen with all this bright white background - but I finally see your point:

"When the vision of one operating a motor vehicle is impaired due to no fault of their own, the Rules of the Road and caution go out the bloody window and he or she is entitled to proceed with impunity and in disregard of loss of life, limb and property."

But its a flippin’ joke . . . . right?!

You are completely and utterly wrong, I thought this was a forum for advice but it seems it's also forum of trolls just like many other places on the internet.

I was going under 5 miles an hour. I was going more careful and slow than I normally do, or than is expected, because it was my first time in the lot and it was cramped. I was paying attention to both directions for pedestrians and cars. I'd have looked both ways before I commenced the turn, however I hit the pole before I reached that point, as it is in front of the alley, in the lot..My vision and depth perception was obscured so I narrowly hit a pole, about 8 inches leftwards and I would have not. I also would not have hit any cars or pedestrians as I had scoped the area before turning to go towards the exit, and the sidewalk and street area was still visible to me. My main error was overcompensating looking to the left, into the alley and for cars exiting their parking spots.

How I am going to proceed I believe is look into the local laws on parking lot regulations, to see if this exit was small enough that it would prove some sort of 'negligence'. Otherewise the situation is too ambiguous to likely do anything. Being in an accident is a frustrating enough situation without idiots like Latigo giving their 'input', although at least it lets me build up a defense against the stupider arguments some may provide against me.


Justalayman, when you enter a parking lot there is little way to know what difficulties may arise when you exit it. Drivers are not supposed to be expert analysts of predicting how a parking lot exit will play out, just while you enter and find a parking space.

While the vast majority of responsibility falls on drivers, parking lot owners do have some responsibility to make sure their lot meets regulations for size and safety. There is a reason roads, parking spaces, and parking lot lanes are large enough to give drivers some margin of error in operating the vehicle, as everyone isn't an expert driver with pinpoint accuracy(although I'd say I usually am very good, first accident in 9 years, I just simply just turned into a situation with lots of unknowns and I didn't recognize the danger in those several seconds I had the chance to).

 

[racer72]

You hit a stationary object. You are at fault. End of story. Period.

 

[Levgre]

You hit a stationary object. You are at fault. End of story. Period.

Hey, another person here who gives innaccurate advice! Some of the people in this thread really don't represent these forums well.

"f you are involved in a road traffic accident that involves a stationary object, it will often be assumed that you are automatically at fault – because you were driving a moving vehicle and the object or car that you hit was still - but is this always the case?

There are lots of accidents including stationary objects every day, most often involving skips, a car being parked in an unusual or dangerous place or unlit road works, and you might find that whoever left the object there may be liable to some extent."

In some states illegally parked cars can be put at blame even if they were stationary.

I'll do my own research though on what constitutes a hazardous parking lot exit and if I have any leverage here. As most advice here seems pretty shallow and worthless.

Although, you are accurate that saying hitting a stationary object puts you at fault, that just implies nothing about situations about partial fault, is what was my main goal in this situation, if anything. So thanks for the non-relevant advice.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I was going under 5 miles an hour.

For starters, there is no way that going under 5 miles an hour would have caused that kind of damage to the pole, or to your vehicle...

Additionally, that electric pole probably belongs the a utility company and was placed there through some sort of easement and not by choice of the parking lot owner... As such, suing the utility company (with their possible line up of attorneys) based on as ridiculous a claim as you're making here is not only laughable, but may end up in costing you additional monies to pay for their padded legal/attorney fees... Save yourself the time, effort, and embarrassment and file a claim through your insurance... (but I'm guessing you aren't insured and hence the reason why you're stretching so far trying to blame someone else for your lack of attention)...

Sorry that's not what you wanted to hear but hey, we can't please everybody every time... Good luck and drive carefully.

 

[Levgre]

Wow, 3 out of 4 people here so far are non-useful inflammatory posters.

(not saying commentary isn't valuable but repeating the same as others,and also being off on the facts, is not too useful).

1. I have insurance and your personal attack is unnecessary, I was paying attention in this situation unfortunately people do make mistakes and the object was not visible to me because of the sun. I have never hit a car in 7+ years of driving, yet I hit a large, stationary object... it would not make since for an otherwise competent, sober driver to have a pole 'sneak up' on them unless it was an exceptional situation. It wasn't lack of attention but being overwhelmed by too much in an unfamiliar environment, getting ready to turn and looking to make sure there wasn't obstacles, pedestrians, etc., therefore in that 2 second window now seeing the pole on the right I was approaching and hitting it with the rightmost portion of my car.

My driver error was not compensating for the horrible glare by stopping completely and to survey the area, or anticipating a setting sun on my trip and carrying sunglasses. But I had looked to the right and not saw any cars or pedestrians, I did not expect a pole to be in the middle of the parking lot. From now on I will be much more cautious when my vision is obscured.

Also, the plan would have been to most likely take action against the parking lot operator for an insufficiently sized exit, not the utility company.

I also doubt you really know how much damage 4 mph can cause a front bumper directly impacts an immovable object, especially when the driver does not hit the break to stop the car until after impact, hence not lessening the blow. The force of impact on the bumper would also be quite focused, since the rounded edge of the pole would make about a 3 inch initial impact zone. You think the car would just stop? Or perhaps the ton of weight being pressed against the bumper would not break an inflexible object? This is just another attack on me as a driver, as that seems to be the bulk of your post, not actual legal advice. And a poor attack besides, since your analysis of damage impact is wrong.

There was nothing exact that I wanted to hear coming to this forum, despite what you may have assumed about an answer I was 'fishing' for. I did not and do not have high hopes of having a case, but instead of getting legal advice I met a group of hostile board members, assigning blame and character attacks when they don't have sufficient knowledge to do so. But I am used to the internet so I'm not surprised.

 

[racer72]

Wow, 3 out of 4 people here so far are non-useful inflammatory posters.

Before you make yourself look like a bigger idiot, have you considered that when 3 out of 4 folks that know a whole lot more about legal matters say you way off base and all 4 say you don't have a case, that might be a trend? I have seen a number of cases very similar to yours in court and the trials are usually very short and in every case the plaintiff has lost. And look bad doing it. Go sue the bad guys and come back and let us know how it went.

 

[You Are Guilty]

How weird, I have a very similar problem. I hit a 6 year old kid exiting a parking lot, I couldn't see it because of the glare of the sun. I had no idea what I had impacted with, since the impact was low I thought I ran over something. I was far away from the sidewalk where most obstructions are.

So I think I want to file for partial fault against the parking lot owner (or maybe the parents for the kid?) The reasoning be that the parking lot was very cramped and small, and the kid was well in the parking lot obstructing the exit, and no cement ground/fence etc. protecting a car from the kid.

I know Parking lot owners can't just be blamed for accidents caused by sun glare, but I think they were partially responsible for dangerous, cramped parking lot design. And the kid is in a very unusual place, if a grown person stood in a parking lot nonstop, restricting the exit space, it would certainly be a cause for concern.

So how much can I sue for?

 

[justalayman]

Levgre;2687200]

I was going under 5 miles an hour. I was going more careful and slow than I normally do, or than is expected, because it was my first time in the lot and it was cramped. I was paying attention to both directions for pedestrians and cars. I'd have looked both ways before I commenced the turn, however I hit the pole before I reached that point, as it is in front of the alley, in the lot..My vision and depth perception was obscured so I narrowly hit a pole, about 8 inches leftwards and I would have not. I also would not have hit any cars or pedestrians as I had scoped the area before turning to go towards the exit, and the sidewalk and street area was still visible to me. My main error was overcompensating looking to the left, into the alley and for cars exiting their parking spots.

so, you admit it was unsafe for you to drive without a spotter. Sure sounds like it's your fault.

Justalayman, when you enter a parking lot there is little way to know what difficulties may arise when you exit it

. only if you have your eyes closed when you entered the lot.

Drivers are not supposed to be expert analysts of predicting how a parking lot exit will play out, just while you enter and find a parking space.

actually, given the fact you are in control of a vehicle that has a mass of a ton or more and is capable of imparting extreme forces upon other objects, yes, you are expected to be an expert. If you are not, you should not be driving.

While the vast majority of responsibility falls on drivers, parking lot owners do have some responsibility to make sure their lot meets regulations for size and safety.

sure. You post those laws up here and prove me wrong.

,

I just simply just turned into a situation with lots of unknowns and I didn't recognize the danger in those several seconds I had the chance to).

so, again you admit your driving skills are inadequate and you should have your license revoked. I agree 100%.

 

[justalayman]

In some states illegally parked cars can be put at blame even if they were stationary.

.

why don't you post a list of those "some states". I went on a search awhile back looking for such laws. I found one local municipality that considered it to be contributory to an accident. I found no states that considered a non-moving vehicle to be at fault for an accident.

 

[Levgre]

Before you make yourself look like a bigger idiot, have you considered that when 3 out of 4 folks that know a whole lot more about legal matters say you way off base and all 4 say you don't have a case, that might be a trend? I have seen a number of cases very similar to yours in court and the trials are usually very short and in every case the plaintiff has lost. And look bad doing it. Go sue the bad guys and come back and let us know how it went.

I am not just talking about legal input, as most of the 'advice' given was not legal, but rather trying to cut apart my ability as a driver. The only way that is useful is preparation for meeting the arguments for any defense, but I know that wasn't their intention because of the rude manner in which they did it.


Youareguilty and justalayman, you are completely off base because I never would have hit any kid unless within a space of 2 seconds they 'leaped' into that area which was obscured from my vision. When pulling backwards out of the parking spot, I had already scanned the general area, of course looking for the most pertinent threats, cars or pedestrians. Then when I turned while in reverse and positioned the car for the exit, I also scanned the parking lot for such threats, and surely 'saw' the pole, but did not yet perceive it as any threat because I was not yet calculating my exact exit path(best done when you are actually facing the direction of exit)...and how often are poles sitting in the middle of parking lots like that? With my focus on maneuvering the car in this first-time in the parking lot I didn't also consider 'hypothetical', unusual objects, that'd be for later, on the approach, because my mind was focused on staying safe, observe mode, not 'pondering' mode. Then, when I turned the car to the right, to straighten my approach, my eyesight went directly into the sun... I put my foot over the break, put down the sun visor(my usual, and in the past completely suitable precaution against the sun), turned my attention to the left to look at the newly revealed space and cars that could start moving, while still paying attention to the right with peripheral vision, then there was impact on the rightmost portion of my car. There was no window where a kid could have jumped into my path in the small area of the parking lot I couldn't see on the right, unless they really tried to... I still had vision the sidewalk, a kid running and jumping in front of a car can be hard to avoid even in better circumstances. With my slow speed I practiced more than enough caution to avoid hitting any pedestrians, only to 'wing' a strangely placed pole.


And no, drivers aren't required to be 'expert' drivers, by expert I mean someone with skill far beyond the normal, proficient driver, such as a racecar driver. A driver is supposed to respect all the rules of the road, exercise due caution, and demonstrate proficiency at all times. My driving was proficient in this case even if the results weren't, my mistake was not recognizing how completely blinding glare can be to a focused area, I had to realize this in the matter of seconds before impact... my focus was on getting out of the parking lot safely... They do not even go over glare in driver's ed class or on the test, they did go over the environmental hazards of rain, snow, and ice. So I did not respect the glare even in such an unassuming situation as pulling out of a parking lot. If I was driving on a road and was blinded to part of my field of vision an extended period of time(almost surely more than the 3-5relevant seconds in this case), I would pull over until the sun changed position, or if there was a place where I could acquire sunglasses.

And justalayman, in a parking lot with 3 exits/entrances, I doubt you would take the time to analyze the trajectories of all 3 exits and possible obstacles, not that you even could since without the proper point of view, you cannot judge an approach. Unless you are like a savant and can instantly visualize a parking lot and all the objects inside in full 3-d mode, known in your mind that this pole was several feet into the parking lot, then held that fact in your mind until you pulled out and decided to take another exit than the entrance you took in.

 

[justalayman]

I had already scanned the general area, of course looking for the most pertinent threats, cars or pedestrians.

but apparently didn't see the huge fricken power pole. A kid is less obvious than a pole that is 50 feet tall.

and surely 'saw' the pole, but did not yet perceive it as any threat because I figured it would not be in the way..

it was only in the way because you apparently chose to drive a path which was in a direct path with the pole. Since you have a steering wheel and the pole doesn't, you were supposed to turn your wheels so you didn't hit the huge fricken power pole.

how often are poles sitting in the middle of parking lots?

well, look at any walmart and most lots that use lights. They generally have poles in the middle of their parking lots so I would say; very often.

I didn't also consider 'hypothetical', strangely awkward threats.

no need to be concerned with hypothetical threats. You had a huge fricken power pole which you claim to have even been aware of. That is just plain poor driving skills.

.

There was no window where a kid could have jumped into my path in the small area of the parking lot

yet the pole jumped into your path and you missed that.

Oh, wait, you said you were aware of the pole.

Dang, I guess you are lucky there wasn't a kid standing still so you wouldn't have to worry about him walking into your path. You aim for stationary objects.

With my slow speed I practiced more than enough caution to avoid hitting any pedestrians, only to 'wing' a strangely placed pole.

If you hit a stationary object, no, you did not practice more than enough caution. If you had, you would have not hit a huge stationary power pole.

 

[BOR]

Levgre, let's approach this from another comparable standard, Premises Liability.

If we use the doctrine of "obvious and open" of an alleged hazard, the owner/agent may or may not be liable, mainly not.

If the obstruction/causation of the accident/harm is so obvious to a person, they are negligent not to avoid it.

Let's assume the pole has been placed in a hazardous position, it is still open and obvious.

Now, I know you are addressing sun glare, and while this may diminish liability if you were charged by the police for hitting it, I do not see how it is contributory/comparitive negligence as a legal standard as far as liability to you for your damages?