jcnesq

While there may well be a good claim against the city, you have insurance, and they will be going after the city if indeed there is a good claim. Leave it at that - not worth your time to pursue it and in any case the insurance company is subrograted to your claims and in effect it becomes their claim.

Speed

Realize this: If your insurance pays for the repair, your claim against the city will be limited to your deductible, if any.

jsmirand

When you drive, you are captain of your ship, end of story.

The accident stinks, but I think there should be some personal acceptance of fault here.

At Law

Not true. The insurance company can subrogate the entire
amount from the City.

At Law

Perhaps you had cause to sue the City.

Everyone has a duty to act in a reasonable manner; even a city.

If a party acts negligently, they need to pay for their lack of reasonable
judgment.

This is what keeps products / services safe for consumers.

If it wasn't for lawsuits against manufacturers/Cities/doctors/lawyers,
there would be no incentive to provide a safe product or service.

jsmirand

Originally Posted by Speed
"Realize this: If your insurance pays for the repair, your claim against the city will be limited to your deductible, if any."
"Not true. The insurance company can subrogate the entire
amount from the City."

Actually, the response if false, as that is not what the original quote stated. The quote stated that if you are re-imbursed, your claim against the city would be limited. The post did not address what the insurance company's claim might or might not be. So your response is not true because the first quote was not talking about the insurance company's legal rights.

Graygoose997

I was recently paid 800.00 by the contractor repairing a state highway because they left metal strips in the expansion joints they were pouring, for a new tire and wheel repair.
It took one phone call and a short form.
Both the city and the state highway departments in Pa. have people to deal with these issues every day.
In this instance they hit the contractor for the money.
I know in other instances, they also paid for their neglect in roads they are responsible for.
I know everyone says it's not the money, it's the principle..but it really was this time.
My advice.. bypass the lawyers, don't threaten to sue, but contact the municipalities' streets department and ask to file a claim.

rickmdz

FlatSix911

Remember that this incident occurred in California ... the city and State government agencies are broke.

Regarding reimbursement ... NFW

mossjn

Guys - Thanks for your comments - very interesting perspectives.

Purrybonker - In general I agree with your comments about "****e happens" and take responsibility for your actions. I may be trying to simply blame another party but do believe this was a very unusual road condition, not just a median without reflectors.

I agree with the comment of determining if there have been numerous other incidents over the years due to this condition and if there have not, I am perfectly willing to take the hit on this one (so to speak).

Out of principle and for peace of mind, I will at least investigate more about this specific condition to see if it is as unusual and problematic as I have described. If it is not, I shall freely admit that I completely blew it. Insurance will cover, excepting the $1,000 deductible and they probably will not want to spend the money to pursue the City. I will at least go the next step or two and see what happens......need a little peace of mind on this one - have never been the cause of an accident and hope not to start now.

997, esq

+1. Agree with this. The subrogated claim is the insurance company's business.

Also, I generally agree with the comments that people too often sue just because something bad has happened to them, and not because they have a legally valid claim. Not suggesting that would be the case here -- I don't know enough about the facts here to say whether a claim would or wouldn't be justified here. But I believe we'd be better off with fewer lawyers and lawsuits. -- from a lawyer who litigates.

Gj325

+1 Fewer Lawyers or should I say fewer Amb. Chasers. Those guys are not Lawyers in the correct sense anyway!!!!!!!!!

Minok

Accidents do happen. Someone installing a pole in the middle of the interstate is not an accident. Neither is any other intentional failure to comply with codes on construction and engineering. There is a difference between '****e happens' and 'negligence'.

Oh, and if I'm the captain of my ship at high seas and some fool cuts across my bow in a rowboat, I can just run their stupid **** over and not think twice about it. If its a pirate, I can blow them out of the water with my 50cal. But if I'm on the roads, I have an obligation to behave a certain way, and the operators/maintainers of the roads have an obligation to behave a certain way... we strive for agreed to, predictable behavior. If I've got to accept responsibility for every stupid and antisocial thing that might happen on the roads, without expecting the ability to be compensated for the damage inflicted by the initiating party, then I am going to start shooting at bad drivers and leave notes on their corpses that say "****e happens; your the captain of your own ship; deal with it; that's what your insurance is for".

Macster

Still plently of CA IOUs left to hand out.

Sincerely,

Macster.

simsgw

I can pretty well predict what the City Engineer will say in response to your claim, especially if you take him away from real work to testify in court. They will have dealt with many such cases already. Probably right there in Concord, but if not, their counterparts around California certainly have and they have journals like the rest of us professionals. So forgive me while I shift into a "voice of the city" mode for a minute to show you what you'll be up against. (Always assuming I understood your description, but it certainly sounded clear.)

That curb configuration is a standard method in California of controlling "a very dangerous" traffic pattern. (I attached a picture below for the benefit of those who can't quite picture this.) Were I on the City Engineer/City Attorney's side, I'd use a tone of voice and body language here that make it clear your situation to me is akin to someone who scrapes their paint on the guard rails we put up at the side of roads as they cross an overpass. I would sincerely express my regret for your loss, but note that we put that curb in to protect lives. You merely suffered minor damage. Yes, yes. $10,000. I know. You said. But the hypothetical me defending this claim would present terrible pictures of multi-car accidents that occurred before 'we' began using this type of barrier. (Note that I can draw on the entire state to acquire my horror stories, because I can readily expand that 'we' to mean traffic engineers across California.) I would assert that your case demonstrates the correctness of our decision. We traded a daily potential for loss of life for a little cosmetic damage to a fantastically expensive supercar in a situation where the typical vehicle in our city would have been embarrassed at worst. I will feel justified saying that because the "typical vehicle" across California is a bloody pick-up truck, often with lifted suspension, with the SUV running close behind in popularity. 'We' will be shown to have exercised reasonable and prudent caution by installing that curb. (And I don't mean to ridicule that choice. It costs money to do that instead of a simple white line and a sign. I believe they do consider carefully which intersections call for that curb. Reasons for that decision below.)

Having heard it done, I predict that 'our' City Attorney will immediately place you on the defensive for driving that supercar "without exercising the unusual care its extreme low height and fragile construction require." Not that you care, but if you had been driving one of those SUV's, a Cayenne for instance, he would find ways to imply you want a [expression of distaste while pursing his lips] 'vehicle' [sniff] that lets you ignore ordinary caution as to holes and bumps and road hazards that a properly cautious driver is alert to miss. "Would you have been so free with your lane control in a proper sedan or a Prius like so many of our conscientious citizens drive?" In other words, you ain't gonna win this battle of insinuations. Don't let it come down to that.

The purpose of the type of curb those appear to be along Monument Boulevard requires them to be high enough to provide a serious visual deterrent to the people they are trying to deter and a moderately damaging punishment to those who can't be deterred. Not you, but those who try to cross them perpendicular to the flow along Monument. (I've seen more than one car teetering forward and back after trying to cross such a barrier. That seems to be their design goal for the typical vehicle because the typical reckless driver with a couple too many drinks is perfectly willing to jump a lesser curb.) Back in my City Engineer's voice, I would assert a duty for the city to consider the safety of ordinary people driving ordinary cars and to place that duty above any that might be proposed in court for protection of cars driven only by the very wealthy. (Can't you just hear it? Butter wouldn't melt in my mouth as I spake those words. All the more so if I had my own Cayman parked outside the courthouse. Even more sincerely perhaps, because I would know how careful I have to be about steep driveways.)

Let me illustrate the intent of that type of curb with my snip below taken from Google Earth. That picture is a spot along Monument Blvd where someone bound northeast -- moving to the right -- would need to turn left to enter that housing development along the side of what looks like a small river. Now picture instead someone coming out of that housing area and wanting to turn left and go northeast on Monument. The curb is there to prevent such a turn.

Highway engineers put this configuration in places where the left turn is considered tempting enough and hazardous enough that a simple "No Left Turn" sign is not sufficient protection for through traffic on the boulevard. That's assuming they don't give a damn if the person breaking the left-turn restriction gets themselves killed, and personally I don't. Care much that is. But I suppose the justification for such curbs under the code includes protection of the stupid and reckless as well as the upright citizens already on the boulevard proceeding northeast. I would cite all this justification and then point out that "a typical vehicle" catching that curb end-on while making a legal left turn would suffer little if any damage and even that would be their own fault: "If you don't look, you're reckless. If you look, but don't see, you are negligent." Granted, a certain number of careless drivers damage their cars this way every year, but it is a small cost for saving the lives of so many and it is imposed on those best able to prevent their own loss, Drivers making a legal left turn with proper care would never be inconvenienced at all.

Dropping out of my professional persona, as well as my hypothetical defense of the city, I personally hate those damn things. If I were you, I'd go back and take pictures proving the reflectors are missing. If they are. Look closely along the face of the curb, where they may have placed those embedded units intended to survive being run over. (As you did.[ahem])

You can take the pictures anyway but if reflectors are there, it's not worth wasting film. Since you're almost certainly using a digital camera, go ahead anyhow, but they will know which type of curb you're talking about as soon as they check a map for the intersection you name. They know people hit the damned things like fallen logs in the countryside. But go ahead anyway if you can take the pictures without getting run over yourself.

Then file a complaint citing poor lighting at least, and a lack of reflectors if they are missing. But just file for your deductible, and make it a claim, not an action at law. You're much more likely to get some reimbursement that way. Maybe only a token, or maybe even your entire deductible. They build these things to protect the through traffic as I say, and to some extent the damn fools who want to make a blind left turn out of that housing area, but they are aware -- at least the engineers are -- that the trade-off is a certain number of minor-damage incidents owing to putting a curb where we don't normally expect one. They won't be unsympathetic is what I'm saying. At least, not to a simple claim. A lawsuit is a different matter of course.

Be sure to describe your direction of turn carefully. They will have no sympathy and no concern at all if you let them believe you were coming out from the housing area, making what is intended to be a proscribed left turn. Make sure they know you were only doing the right and honorable thing with that turn and merely got fooled by the low light and lack of reflectors. (If, that is.) They will sympathize. Don't bother to rant. Just ask. Appeal. They may be broke, in which case you won't get anything but a sympathetic refusal, but at least you will have tried.

Incidentally, I just grabbed that picture of one intersection like you described. I obviously have no idea where you really were. I noticed a lot of corners with that configuration along Monument, just as I would if I checked many another major boulevard in California cities.

I sure am sorry to hear they caught another sports car.

Gary