damage from parking barrier spike

[ecmst12]

This is a collision claim, not comp. Striking a fixed object is definitely a collision. OP will have to pay his deductible.

 

[poor volvo]

ok
i am starting to get the picture here.
there are 5 stores in this strip mall.

what if i ask the tennants of these stores if there had been previous complaints of damage?
if the owner had received previous complaints, would ignoring those complaints be considered negligence?

thanks again.

 

[Zigner]

ok
i am starting to get the picture here.
there are 5 stores in this strip mall.

what if i ask the tennants of these stores if there had been previous complaints of damage?
if the owner had received previous complaints, would ignoring those complaints be considered negligence?

thanks again.

File with your insurance company. (Most likely to get you something)
And/or, sue the parking lot people in small claims court. (Not very likely to get you something)

 

[You Are Guilty]

ok
i am starting to get the picture here.
there are 5 stores in this strip mall.

what if i ask the tennants of these stores if there had been previous complaints of damage?
if the owner had received previous complaints, would ignoring those complaints be considered negligence?

thanks again.

Wow, I must be sinking in. Arguably, if there is a long history of similar complaints, they MAY (and I stress the MAY) be some affirmative duty on the owner/operator of the parking lot to remedy the problem, even if the problem was not a statutory violation.

Main problems with this thinking?
1) Unlikely that 5 stores jointly own the parking lot.
2) Unlikely that any of the stores are going to maintain incident or accident reports for parking lot damage.
3) Even if they do, pigs will fly before they will voluntarily turn them over to you (so you can use them to sue the stores!)
4) Even if they do own the lot, and they do take reports, and they do give them to you, AND they show XX number of people running over the same thing, it's still a question of fact whether they had sufficient notice of a problem to place an affirmative duty on them to do something about it. That's a lot of hoops to jump through just to get a maybe 10% chance of success.

And I see in my haste above I wrote comp coverage, for which I stand corrected. Driving into an object will fall under collision, but collision also will not take into account the driver's actions in paying the claim (as long as they weren't intentional, that is).

 

[ecmst12]

However, in a collision claim like this, the driver will be charged with an at-fault accident. In a comp claim, the driver/owner would never be considered at fault.

 

[stealth2]

a wall or an infant would have been seen.

a tiny piece of steel sticking up a half an inch above the concrete was imposible to see.

No it isn't. And your wife shouldn't have been pulling that far in. Get real, kiddo.

 

[poor volvo]

the parking lot is owned by the building owner.

the 5 stores rent space from the building owner.

the tennants would not be responsible for the parking lot so they may be cooperative,
especially if their previous complaints had been ignored by the property owner.

comes down to the property owner has not maintained the parking lot.
it is a mess! the barrier spikes are only part of its problems.
this is a nice area of town and other parking lots in the area are all well kept.

if i owned the lot, i would fix the spike problem as soon as i was aware of it
and i wouldnt need someone else point it out to me.
its called being responsible.

he just pretends he doesnt know about it to save the money it would take to correct it.
typical slum lord attitude.
dont do anything until they make you do it.

so people will continue to damage their cars and this guy will continue to get off free.
its a shame but we have better things to do then try to correct his behavior.

advice taken.

thanks

 

[Zigner]

so people will continue to damage their cars...

Only the ones who don't look first...

 

[poor volvo]

you must have super power vision if you think you can see a metal spike sticking a half inch above the concrete barrier at an angle while sitting inside your car and pulling in to a parking spot.

and i suppose it is even easier to see it when it is dark and raining outside?

you can probably see though the hood of your car too?

wow, x ray vision!

when i said it was not visible from inside the car, that was the truth.

 

[You Are Guilty]

1/2"? "De minimis non curat lex."

(Not to mention that if it was truly 1/2", then she probably shouldn't have put her bumper over the barrier - she was going to scrape it anyway.)

 

[ecmst12]

The barrier is just there as a courtesy so that drivers can't driver through the space into another car or into the building. You're not technically supposed to be pulling so far forward that your bumper is over the barrier in the first place. A driver that hits a stationary object will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS be at fault. It's called maintaining control of your vehicle.

 

[racer72]

It looks like the OP is not going to get the answer he wants so we will have to evoke Free Advice Rule #79. The OP is hereby granted 48 hours to change the law that does not agree with him and is allowed to sue the person that did him wrong. If he fails to take advantage of this special privelige, he is forever barred from complaining about receiving the legally correct advice he received from this forum. OP, your 48 hours starts at 12:00 PM PST.

 

[runmkm]

Knew the problem existed

I have had a similar event happen to me.

In my situation, I spoke with the manager of the tennis club, and she said that "maintenance" would normally take care of the extended spike, as this happens when a member runs over the concrete barrier, causing the "rebar" spike to stick up.

Would this imply knowledge of a problem and failure to have done the maintenance they normally would do, would make a small claims suit win more probable ? Would this imply negligence in not performing their normal maintenance ?

 

[InsaneJane]

It's what those in the parking lot matainance department call 'an accident waiting for a victom!'

 

[ecmst12]

It doesn't imply knowledge of this SPECIFIC INSTANCE of the problem. It doesn't help you.