allegretto

Alan, you know "golf course liability"

what may be at issue here is that unlike bird droppings, the sprinklers are under control of the hotel. the hotel has a duty not to endanger the guest or their belongings.

again, i don't care. and the SB/Ventura types may be this or that. and thank God it wasn't my car anyway.

i'm just trying to understand the liability. brief story;

i was playing golf in a tournament, with an Appellate Court judge as my opponent. it wasn't for much, so we were friendly during the round. he spent several holes discussing a case he had before him involving a motor vehicle accident where there were suits and cross-suits and the jury decided that there was no liability on either side. one side decided to appeal to his court and he was trying to decide who was at fault.

i said, "well maybe the jury was right". he said, "someone is always more wrong".

i didn't forget this. this is how they think. you and i may see it too fuzzy. they are in the business of laying blame... and often they decide what we would consider oddly.

todd.

This stuff works miracles, from hard water spots to removing adhesives to removing fine scratches.

Ucube

Actually yes...not against the course owner, but the offender. I think you may be taking the concept of "assumed risk" too far. Were I to get hit by a golf ball from the group playing behind me that puts me in a coma, would that be my own fault? Have I waived all my rights to personal and property safety simply by playing on a golf course?

OCBen

That's a polish.

You're going to be needlessly removing too much paint with that product.

uzj100

Maybe not, Ben. We would need to know the level of "cut" that this polish has. The damage to the paint of these cars consists of above the surface hard water spotting. To my knowledge, none of the cars have any etching. Dan and two of the others involved came over to my house (I live quite close to the venue) as soon as they discovered what had happened. We washed all of the cars with Optimum No Rinse. I then used a mild clay on some affected "test" areas to gauge the level of correction needed. The claying helped some. I then used some paint cleaner, which also helped some. Next step was Menzerna PO85RD, which is their lightest polish--a finishing polish--mated to a finishing pad. This combination was used with my Flex DA polisher. This type of combination was my recommendation for those affected. For correction of an entire car the only protocol change that I would have made, would be to use my Metabo rotary polisher.

I think the real "pain" here, is the time (and money) needed to adequately remove the water spotting and the attitude of the employees. IMHO, the actual correction needed for these cars (i.e. clear coat removal) will be practically nil.

Of course you could just jump right and correct the paint with a heavier polish and pad combo--something like Menzera's Power Gloss and an orange Lake Country pad, then step down to a lighter polish--in which case you would be removing some clear. Again, my suggestion and .02--based on what I saw--is that a finishing polish combined with a finishing pad would be sufficent to resolve the issues on the affected cars.

I'm not familiar with the polish Todd has posted, so I don't know if it's got a lot of cut or not.

Another approach, which may work too and that I didn't consider, would be to use a "chemical" type cleaner like Klasse. As you know, my preferences are to first use the least abrasive polish and pad combo, then ratchet things up as needed.

In the end, these cars will be fine, but as already stated, it's the aggravation, time involved to resolve the paint condition and the ho hum attitude of the hotel staff that's so frustrating.

OCBen

True.

You certainly want to use a very fine cut, which is what that autopia recommended product I posted likely is. I would also try P21S Paintwork Cleanser, that's a very, very fine polish.

But I agree with you, you always want to start with the lightest cutter and work your way up. Or, if you have a lot of patience and want to minimize your risk of damage, stick with the finest cutter and just apply gobs of elbow grease.

oneyedjack

Clay bar can remove hard water spots as well. AFAIK, without removing paint.

OCBen

Nope.

A clay bar can only remove surface contaminants. The damage here is to the paint itself in the form of etchings.

https://rennlist.com/forums/997-foru...ml#post2503232

http://www.detailedimage.com/Chemica...ct-description

oneyedjack

Oh well, works on hard water (lime) deposits for me. No experience with Cali-reclaim-funk though.

uzj100

Clay bars can, but clay bars have varying degrees of cleaning ability, as do polishes.

As Ben noted, some of the paint cleaners can probably be classified as "polishes". It would be interesting to evaluate this from a "scientific" perspective. IMHO, removing the water spots will also involve removing some of the clear coat as the surface contamination is corrected. The paint has something on its surface and needs to be re-leveled. The process of removing the spots also removes whatever protection has been applied--i.e. wax or sealant. I don't think it's possible to take away the contamination (and the protection) re-smooth the surface and prep it for a coat of wax or sealant and not take away some of the paint, no matter how miniscule that amount might be?

Ben, what say you?

WaltB

Parking next to the grass is always a concern of mine. I worry less about sprinkler water then the guy cutting the grass that potentially runs into my car or has something shot out of the chute that hits it.
Also, I avoid parking directly under trees or light posts to avoid bird poop. I also avoid parking in narrow parking spots or in theater parking spots where door dings by kids. I park far away in grocery store lots or places like target also. I never valet! So basically I sum up the potential threat to my car before I park it somewhere and if the threat reaches my threshold, I just don't park there.
In regards to this thread, I don't see how you blame the hotel for misaligned heads.
Still, I sympathize, it sucks!

9elf S

I'll begin by reiterating At Law's admonition that this isn't legal advice, but rather my thoughts on the subject.

I am also an attorney and not a doctor, thank God (at least I don't have to navigate a morass of paperwork to seek reimbursement from insurance companies, have my bills significantly marked down by those same insurance companies, which are eroding the standard of care, and, I almost forgot, I don’t keep my clients waiting an hour after their designated appointment time…but I digress).

At Law is right on target. The point is that, contrary to some earlier posts and conventional wisdom, just because you may have suffered damage you aren’t necessarily entitled to compensation. Generally, a plaintiff claiming negligence would need to prove a number of elements, such as duty owed by the defendant, a breach of that duty (i.e., a breach of the standard of care as measured by the hypothetical reasonable person), causation (both actual and proximate) and damages. A number of posts take exception as to whether a duty was owed or whether that duty was breached by the hotel. I think everyone can agree that damage occurred to the P-cars in the form of water spots and that the hotel’s sprinklers caused the water spots.

As pointed out in earlier posts, as a general matter, a duty is owed by the hotel to its guests. The sprinkler warning sign someone posted is evidence that no duty was owed to guests parking their cars in the hotel lot. If the hotel lot was a pay lot, I bet the parking stub had some disclaimer language written on it in really small type. But these are not dispositive by themselves on the question of duty.

Assuming a duty was owed, whether that duty was breached is also a question that reasonable minds can differ. Some people believe that it is irresponsible for the hotel to not maintain their sprinkler system. While others may think that misaimed sprinkler heads are not a big deal. Ultimately, I think it’s not as clear-cut as some may think.

The part of the story I find unbelievable is that the P Club would return to the hotel after a number of its members were treated in the manner described.

allegretto

i see you are aware of the "Doctor's Dilemma"

that is why i work for patients, not Ins Co. or the G. they pay me, not "third (turd) parties"and if a patient is seen 10 min late, my staff will hear about it. i've had attys keep me waiting far longer.

thanks for the info. does it mean they should retain counsel, or just "eat it"?

points

Just how much crap would it take to stop going there? Unbelievable.

Edgy01

This is the point that our leadership fails to get. Why anyone would return to that place is beyond me. I think they'll be gunning for us on a return visit.

The chance of me going to that place again -- Zero.