dgz924s

If that is a manhole lid for a gas valve then it is under federal regulations. Now go at it from that angle. Metal hitting metal around a gas valve will open some eyes especially if you send the Fed the pics! That is a absolute violation. One spark and....................... The other Dal

roco16

I have talked to a couple different legal-related people. To most of them, this isnt there 'department'. What I was hoping for through Rennlist was someone with appropriate knowledge to critique and pick apart my claim, so that I will be better ready when it comes time to sue.

- From what I've heard, it is extremely hard to successfully counter-sue, so that is not so much a worry, but more of a cheap shot threat get me to go away.

- Contacting media / etc seems to be a last resort

How strong of a defense can they put up? If they wont accept responsibility for their hazard, they can only argue that it falls under my responsibility to avoid road hazards.

What are the rules for road hazards? Do they apply to private (commercial) property?

Matt H is right, that most people here are 944 wizards, not legal wizards. But it is worth a shot.

iloveporsches

You really need to go back and see if that cap is installed the other way now. If it is, I think it's a pretty open and shut case of total negligance/ incompetence on their part.

jonnybgood

Their response is a scare tactic. You said you sent it to the gas station. I would send it to Exxon (it is Exxon in California, same as Enco, Esso etc I think). Send it with pics of the covers in correctly if they have been changed.

Best advice is to get an attorney. The same letter with an attorney on the letterhead would get a much different response.
Good luck

Boobers

Thier response is just so lame, it is really very telling that they fear the laibility. Just some facts as I see them, (BTW-I'm a litigious bastard who's lost only one case in my lifetime)
1.) Stop wasting time and energy with phone calls and letters. They will understand only one thing, and that is legal service.
2.) If you sue them, do so at a 50% premium on your highest estimate.
3.) Word the complaint as vague as possible. Make them hunt to do thier OWN investigation. Crazy as it sounds, giving them all the facts only denies them the opportunity to find out for themselves. Somehow the facts (particularly the ones in your favor) have far more power when stumbled upon as opposed to you cramming them down thier throat.
4.) When they call you to offer a settlement, be kind, polite yet firm. Keep in mind that you are not compelled to make decision right away.
5.) Forget about public relations. Remember this is the company that ran the Valdez onto a reef. The oil slicked birds were a far more compelling object of pity than most Porshe owners will ever be(broken timing belts or not)

I wish you good luck, but you don't need it. You have a slam dunk mother****er of a case. Open and shut. If they show for court, they're wasting thier own time and money.

shophobbit

The response sounds typical of a corporate lawyer. Look at the facts. This is a billion dollar company and they are not going to send someone to a small claims court for a measly 2K. What you need to do is convince them the effort on their part would not be worth the trouble. Remember you need to do this in a nice matter of fact non-inflammatory manner.

The road hazard argument is nonsense. No “reasonable person” would expect a road hazard to be installed in a station intended for the service of automobiles. I would check with the local building inspector. The will have records of the installation as well as the code requirements for minimum clearance. All of these records are public domain and readily available. I would also think the civic authorities would be interested in a feature that causes this type of damage at this type of location. Our cars may be low but there are a number or cars out there with similar clearances. The fact of the matter is the condition presents a danger to the general public in that we do not want the potential sparking of metal on metal contact directly above a major gasoline storage facility. Think of the consequences if the cap was venting fumes.

Add to this the potential environmental damage that leaking oil, gas and any number of other fluids automobiles contain and we have an environmental aspect to consider. I would obtain the information from the other driver you mentioned, interview the clerk(s) to see if this has happened before and document your findings before approaching the city about the hazard. Just a concerned citizen doing his duty for public safety. If the city issues a correction notice this will be public domain and fodder for another round of negotiations with the offender.

Be professional, state the facts, get them cited for a defect and go back after them It’s really better for a company of this size to pay you off than fight it, especially if they have a civil correction notice to deal with.

Good luck.

Zero10

Hmm, I think there are some good points on here worth repeating.

There is probably a regulation somewhere stating which direction the gas cap must be installed in.
Yes, it IS a hidden road hazard.
Your insurance may not pay since it is private property.

Here's an example for you.
There is a construction zone in our city. A guy was driving home, doing 85 kph in a 50kph construction zone. He ran over a large rock. He successfully sued the city for his valence/belly pans/oil pan/steering rack.
It's a pretty extreme case, that's here in Canada, where the courts usually throw out over-inflated law suits.

Anyways, that said, keep up. They CANNOT counter-sue for their clerical/attourney fees. That will be thrown out automatically. The same as you cannot include yours in your settlement request.
Keep in mind it is small claims court. They will not send a team of lawyers or anything down there. It is not worth their time.
You are right, keep fighting.

Perry 951

Who do you have insurance with? Place a call to someone in their legal department. That is what they are there for.

If this drags on, let me know. I know a few media outlets that could get a consumer reporter out there.

#1 reason why they are at fault - there is an obvious regulation to the size, height, and style of that cap for a 20,000 gallon gas can! They, by the EPA, are required to maintain it.

dgz924s

In order to counter sue one must be sued and win. You have not lost yet. Meaning you sue me you lose so I retaliate by counter suing for expenses and loss. This is under the EPA jurisdiction both state and federal.

I feel in your letter you lost them when you demanded prompt payment! You should have requested for them to look at the facts and respond with the findings. Then if the Corporation claims no fault then you can simply imply that you disagree and will be letting the court decide. Your threat was the killer! NEVER!! threaten a major corporation with litigation but rather SUGGEST this as a method to resolve the issue. In this case you gave them all your evidence before they had a chance to look into the claim so now they have info that can be manipulated to favor them. Too many cards being played and the Corp. will find a loop hole mainly because they now have time to make something up to justify their defense.

I would have made the claim and state that I have evidence to support my claim then let them investigate their end. Then when they pull a fast one I have more info they did not account for therefore catching them on a fact that was omitted on their part. Dal

roco16

Dal -
Although you bring up a good point about playing all of my cards, I hardly feel like I threatened them. I 'requested', not 'demanded.' There was no mention of any legal action until the phone call I received when the gas station company's insurance agent informed me that small claims would go nowhere and that they would counter-sue if I did take them to small claims. They threatened ME with a countersuit.

shophobbit, perry951 - I think you have an awesome point about the potential danger and damage that this thing poses. Now I need to find the right city official that will care about this.

One other thing, I have been dealing with FlashFoods, a company that owns the quik-shop (they own about 300 stations, with different brands of gasoline). Should I have contated Exxon also?

Big thanks to all of you for your thoughts. Looks like I get to take the pan out (again), this time doing rod bearings as well.

dgz924s

Roco....Point well taken....request........however I played as if I were them and the word PROMPT means now or else! Just my take from it, perhaps my coffee had'nt kicked in and read it while grumpy! Good Luck! Dal

Luis de Prat

Only reason why they've gotten away with the faux pas until you came along is all those darned SUVs...

SidViscous

How does this come down to SUV's fault?

Scootin159

It's a topic on a automotive related message board.....it's ALWAYS the SUV's fault....haven't you figured that out yet?

Luis de Prat

Ever noticed how many of them are around? America's love affair with the SUV is not new. Hence, the Cayenne. Ever noticed the ride height on the average SUV? Quite a bit more than the average car.

Just another reason why I don't care for them. Society is slowly building itself around SUV-type vehicles. Remember the crisis that surrounded the Explorer tire blowups? Wrong car for 100 mph cruising on the highway, but hey, it was Ford's fault, right?