Claim damage against Govt or Contractor ? Limitations ?

[Kerry9]

CA

- District Govt. has Weed abatement ordinance for vacant lots
- District contracts with Contractor to perform weed cutting, then adds to property taxes.

- Contractor, following District Board authorized list, cuts weeds with giant industrial "Flail" mower. (Identified in Govt contract)
- Previously had a very costly & very strong "Well-head" on lot (completely covered by chest-high Brush)
- Have discovered (during recent weed abatement with hand devices) that Well-head is completely shattered. Short of a stick of dynamite, only a "FLail" device could achieve this.

QUESTION:

1.) Do I claim against the Contractor, or against the District ? (Letter of claim for damages)

2.) Discovery was recently, but date of abatement was 3 yrs. ago, according to records. Calif. has judicial history of "Delayed Discovery", but such case-law is all about personal injury, OR, insured/insurer claims.
- Does "Delayed Discovery" apply ?

(there was no reasonable means of earlier discovery, as well-head area is normally covered by high brush, unless ignorant abatement contractors rush in quickly, not understanding why that area is not cut)

 

[quincy]

CA

- District Govt. has Weed abatement ordinance for vacant lots
- District contracts with Contractor to perform weed cutting, then adds to property taxes.

- Contractor, following District Board authorized list, cuts weeds with giant industrial "Flail" mower. (Identified in Govt contract)
- Previously had a very costly & very strong "Well-head" on lot (completely covered by chest-high Brush)
- Have discovered (during recent weed abatement with hand devices) that Well-head is completely shattered. Short of a stick of dynamite, only a "FLail" device could achieve this.

QUESTION:

1.) Do I claim against the Contractor, or against the District ? (Letter of claim for damages)

2.) Discovery was recently, but date of abatement was 3 yrs. ago, according to records. Calif. has judicial history of "Delayed Discovery", but such case-law is all about personal injury, OR, insured/insurer claims.
- Does "Delayed Discovery" apply ?

(there was no reasonable means of earlier discovery, as well-head area is normally covered by high brush, unless ignorant abatement contractors rush in quickly, not understanding why that area is not cut)

I'm sorry, Kerry9, but am I correct in believing you think you might have a claim against the Contractor or the District because they had to cut the weeds on YOUR vacant property, and your well-head was damaged during the cutting because it was disguised by the tall weeds you allowed to grow?

If so then, no, you do not have a claim against the contractor or the district.

 

[Zigner]

Furthermore, if they cut the grass on your wellhead, then you should have noticed it at the time it happened. Either they didn't cut it, thus allowing the weeds to remain, or they did cut it, thereby removing the weeds (a very obvious thing.)

 

[Kerry9]

I'm sorry, Kerry9, but am I correct in believing you think you might have a claim against the Contractor or the District because they had to cut the weeds on YOUR vacant property, and your well-head was damaged during the cutting because it was disguised by the tall weeds you allowed to grow?

If so then, no, you do not have a claim against the contractor or the district.

You are correct in your belief.
Please explain why I do not have a claim against the contractor (or district) for negligent damage of property.

If, for instance, during their cutting, sparks from their engine had caught the fence on fire, that would be a claim. So why is this negligent destruction of property not a claim ?

 

[Zigner]

You are correct in your belief.
Please explain why I do not have a claim against the contractor (or district) for negligent damage of property.

If, for instance, during their cutting, sparks from their engine had caught the fence on fire, that would be a claim. So why is this negligent destruction of property not a claim ?

Because YOU should have cut the weeds.

Furthermore, you've waited too long. It was entirely possible to discover this much much earlier.

 

[Zigner]

(there was no reasonable means of earlier discovery, as well-head area is normally covered by high brush, unless ignorant abatement contractors rush in quickly, not understanding why that area is not cut)

Apparently, that is EXACTLY what you claimed happened. As such, this was discoverable years ago.

 

[Kerry9]

Furthermore, if they cut the grass on your wellhead, then you should have noticed it at the time it happened. Either they didn't cut it, thus allowing the weeds to remain, or they did cut it, thereby removing the weeds (a very obvious thing.)

# 1: No, Not possible as I don't live there.
# 2: They are not required to haul away the brush, they leave it on the ground. Well-head is only ankle-height, thus it's still not visible despite cutting.
# 3: They had plans for the exact well location from prior permit approval. (But it's unlikely they transmit such data to their contractor)

 

[Kerry9]

Because YOU should have cut the weeds.

Furthermore, you've waited too long. It was entirely possible to discover this much much earlier.

Zigner: are you admonishing me for not having cut them ??

Had they waited 2 more days, as I'd requested for them to do by phone, my own handyman would have cut them by hand. And, he knew to leave that tiny area alone.

No, "delayed discovery" case law doesn't go on whether it was simply "possible" to know, but rather if under normal circumstances, the fact of damage could be observed/discovered.

 

[Silverplum]

Zigner: are you admonishing me for not having cut them ??

Had they waited 2 more days, as I'd requested for them to do by phone, my own handyman would have cut them by hand. And, he knew to leave that tiny area alone.

No, "delayed discovery" case law doesn't go on whether it was simply "possible" to know, but rather if under normal circumstances, the fact of damage could be observed/discovered.

Oh, okay, then.

 

[Zigner]

No, "delayed discovery" case law doesn't go on whether it was simply "possible" to know, but rather if under normal circumstances, the fact of damage could be observed/discovered.

You said that the only way you would know is if "...ignorant abatement contractors rush in quickly, not understanding why that area is not cut" That is exactly what they did. It was entirely discoverable. Your lack of monitoring of your property doesn't change it.

 

[quincy]

# 1: No, Not possible as I don't live there.
# 2: They are not required to haul away the brush, they leave it on the ground. Well-head is only ankle-height, thus it's still not visible despite cutting.
# 3: They had plans for the exact well location from prior permit approval. (But it's unlikely they transmit such data to their contractor)

It was your responsibility to hire someone to maintain your property and, if the property is not maintained, the District hires someone to take care of it and then they charge you for the maintenance by adding the cost to your taxes.

Whatever is left on the property or not marked clearly on the property has the chance to get damaged, which is one reason why you hire your own maintenance crew to maintain the property. Another reason is that it is a lot cheaper to hire your own crew.

I am surprised, actually, that your well-head was damaged. Most city contractors I know set the blades high so their machines are not damaged from any garbage that may have been tossed into the weeds (and, when weeds are allowed to grow high, garbage finds its way in, making the lot a community eyesore).

Why aren't you maintaining your vacant lot?

 

[Kerry9]

You said that the only way you would know is if "...ignorant abatement contractors rush in quickly, not understanding why that area is not cut" That is exactly what they did. It was entirely discoverable. Your lack of monitoring of your property doesn't change it.

I'm utterly lost by your comment: You proclaim that it was discoverable WHEN someone went rampaging in & destroyed valuable property. I don't understand how destructive action is considered their saving grace ?

FYI, UN-used well-heads are held in reserve until they can be used in development. It was only upon consideration of installing well equipment that the area directly above was hand-cleared, and the previous destruction discovered.

 

[Zigner]

I'm utterly lost by your comment: You proclaim that it was discoverable WHEN someone went rampaging in & destroyed valuable property. I don't understand how destructive action is considered their saving grace ?

You needed to file a claim with the gov't agency within 6 months of the damage occurring. You failed to do that. Your position is that you couldn't have discovered it. My position is that the damage was obvious and, using a normal/reasonable level of diligence, you could have discovered it.

You say that you were going to have your handyman do the work 2 days after it was already done. How did you know the city had actually done the work? Did you send the handyman out? If so, why didn't he advise of the damage? If not, why didn't you go out to see the work that had been done?

 

[Kerry9]

It was your responsibility to hire someone to maintain your property and, if the property is not maintained, the District hires someone to take care of it and then they charge you for the maintenance by adding the cost to your taxes.

Whatever is left on the property or not marked clearly on the property has the chance to get damaged, which is one reason why you hire your own maintenance crew to maintain the property. Another reason is that it is a lot cheaper to hire your own crew.

I am surprised, actually, that your well-head was damaged. Most city contractors I know set the blades high so their machines are not damaged from any garbage that may have been tossed into the weeds (and, when weeds are allowed to grow high, garbage finds its way in, making the lot a community eyesore).

Why aren't you maintaining your vacant lot?

BECAUSE that year, I lost my health insurance & my job, (in addition to supporting family) and was down to making decisions on how much food to buy, or medical supplies. Your use of future-tense implies I'm not doing so - it was only that year. That year I had very graciously been offered the assistance of a foreign handyman (undocumented alien) to perform that service for me, without regard for when he would be paid - knowing my circumstances. (but district got their first)

I'm quite appreciative of your assumption of willful negligence on my part.

 

[Silverplum]

BECAUSE that year, I lost my health insurance & my job, (in addition to supporting family) and was down to making decisions on how much food to buy, or medical supplies. Your use of future-tense implies I'm not doing so - it was only that year. That year I had very graciously been offered the assistance of a foreign handyman (undocumented alien) to perform that service for me, without regard for when he would be paid - knowing my circumstances. (but district got their first)

I'm quite appreciative of your assumption of willful negligence on my part.

I'm a bit surprised they've entertained you this long.