Crap! Just lost two rims and two tires to a massive pot hole!
12-10-2009 | 01:52 AM
#1
Thread Starter
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,991
Likes: 5
From: Toronto
Crap! Just lost two rims and two tires to a massive pot hole!
Thank goodness it was on the BMW! Two rims bent and two tires exploded on the sidewall.
Does anyone know if I can go after the City for the damages?
P-0
Al
ps it was on O'connor by Lawrence North bound curb lane. Three other cars were damaged too.
Does anyone know if I can go after the City for the damages?
P-0
Al
ps it was on O'connor by Lawrence North bound curb lane. Three other cars were damaged too.
12-10-2009 | 02:52 PM
#4
Nordschleife Master
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,987
Likes: 87
From: Toronto, Dubai, Kuwait & Bombay
hey hey hey Mumbai roads have Improved alot over the last 5-7 Years... Not Pot Holes, just Un-Even Surface, but now they are Re-Surfacing mos on Mumbai with Cement/Concreat like most of the 407...
make sure you take several Photo's of the Pot Hole and use a Tape Measure to take Deminsions
make sure you take several Photo's of the Pot Hole and use a Tape Measure to take Deminsions
12-10-2009 | 03:00 PM
#5
Advanced
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
From: Toronto
Go back and take pictures of the pothole site. Take pictures of the damage to your vehicle. Make copies and of any expenses...towing, repairs, etc. Contact the city they will transfer you to someone who will open a "ticket" Get the fax, address, and email if possible. Send the info and follow up like crazy. In 6-12 months, you can get your $...
12-10-2009 | 03:35 PM
#6
Drifting
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,372
Likes: 59
From: West of Mosport!
Make sure you take a photo with a ruler inserted into the pothole to show the depth and or use a tape measure to records the width.
Links on the issue:
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityne...d-by-a-pothole
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityne...e-damage-claim
From the CAA site
PDF file I ripped from City Hall minutes from a claim made in 2003
May the force be with you! Report back on how it goes.
Links on the issue:
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityne...d-by-a-pothole
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityne...e-damage-claim
From the CAA site
Regulation 239/02 of the Municipal Act and Regulation provides a set of detailed standards for such things as:
Routine road inspections
Snow removal
Sanding and salting
Road sign and signal maintenance
Repair of potholes
The regulation, as it relates to potholes, actually provides a specific guideline of exactly how fast a pothole must be repaired - based on the size of a particular pothole and the classification of the road itself.
It further to define exactly what is considered to be a repair. For example, the minimum standard on a class 2 highway is that a pothole with a surface area greater 800 cm2 and a depth greater than 8cm must be repaired within 4 days of its discovery.
In effect, a municipality can generally only be responsible when it fails to meet the prescribed standard for regular inspections, speed of repair and quality of repair.
It is also worthwhile to note that even if the standards have not been met, the failure to meet those standards would not automatically make the municipality entirely responsible for accidents that occur on roads. The actions of the driver must also be considered.
In our scenario, it is also very important for the aggrieved motorist to know that municipalities are protected by very strict time limits for making claims against them. In Ontario, for legal action relating to road repair, a municipality must be put on notice within 10 days of the occurrence, and any action must be brought against them within 2 years of the event.
Should you make an insurance claim?
Alternatively, the motorist in our example may decide that if the municipality cannot be held directly responsible, then perhaps an insurance claim should be submitted. However, making such a claim is not always the best option.
In Ontario, insurers provide policies that are based on the standard wording written by the Ontario government. The policy is known as the OAP 1 and can be found at www.fsco.gov.on.ca.
A quick glance at the policy reveals that the loss described above would be covered under section 7 of that policy entitled "Loss or Damage Coverages (Optional)" and more specifically under the "Collision" section that specifically contemplates collision with "the surface of the ground."
This is a problem for many motorists.
First, collision coverage is optional and not all motorists purchase it.
Second, a deductible is almost always associated with collision coverage... the deductible is the portion of the loss that the policyholder agrees to pay. In many cases a $500 deductible might be more than the value of the damage to the vehicle.
Third, a collision loss may affect the future insurability of that motorist or may have an affect on their premiums.
These challenges help to outline the circumstances under which making an insurance claim is the best option. If the damage to the vehicle is significant, or if there are any injuries, then making an insurance claim is your best option. That is, provided you have purchased the optional collision coverage and that the damages are in excess of your deductible. Your insurer will respond to help get your vehicle back on the road or pay you for it, if it is not repairable.
In the case of injuries, it doesn't matter if you do not have collision coverage, your automobile insurance policy will respond to help with your physical recovery. And, if your insurer is responding with coverage for your claim and believes the municipality is responsible for the accident by reason of not maintaining the roads, they will fight on your behalf against the municipality to deal with that original question: Who is responsible?
Routine road inspections
Snow removal
Sanding and salting
Road sign and signal maintenance
Repair of potholes
The regulation, as it relates to potholes, actually provides a specific guideline of exactly how fast a pothole must be repaired - based on the size of a particular pothole and the classification of the road itself.
It further to define exactly what is considered to be a repair. For example, the minimum standard on a class 2 highway is that a pothole with a surface area greater 800 cm2 and a depth greater than 8cm must be repaired within 4 days of its discovery.
In effect, a municipality can generally only be responsible when it fails to meet the prescribed standard for regular inspections, speed of repair and quality of repair.
It is also worthwhile to note that even if the standards have not been met, the failure to meet those standards would not automatically make the municipality entirely responsible for accidents that occur on roads. The actions of the driver must also be considered.
In our scenario, it is also very important for the aggrieved motorist to know that municipalities are protected by very strict time limits for making claims against them. In Ontario, for legal action relating to road repair, a municipality must be put on notice within 10 days of the occurrence, and any action must be brought against them within 2 years of the event.
Should you make an insurance claim?
Alternatively, the motorist in our example may decide that if the municipality cannot be held directly responsible, then perhaps an insurance claim should be submitted. However, making such a claim is not always the best option.
In Ontario, insurers provide policies that are based on the standard wording written by the Ontario government. The policy is known as the OAP 1 and can be found at www.fsco.gov.on.ca.
A quick glance at the policy reveals that the loss described above would be covered under section 7 of that policy entitled "Loss or Damage Coverages (Optional)" and more specifically under the "Collision" section that specifically contemplates collision with "the surface of the ground."
This is a problem for many motorists.
First, collision coverage is optional and not all motorists purchase it.
Second, a deductible is almost always associated with collision coverage... the deductible is the portion of the loss that the policyholder agrees to pay. In many cases a $500 deductible might be more than the value of the damage to the vehicle.
Third, a collision loss may affect the future insurability of that motorist or may have an affect on their premiums.
These challenges help to outline the circumstances under which making an insurance claim is the best option. If the damage to the vehicle is significant, or if there are any injuries, then making an insurance claim is your best option. That is, provided you have purchased the optional collision coverage and that the damages are in excess of your deductible. Your insurer will respond to help get your vehicle back on the road or pay you for it, if it is not repairable.
In the case of injuries, it doesn't matter if you do not have collision coverage, your automobile insurance policy will respond to help with your physical recovery. And, if your insurer is responding with coverage for your claim and believes the municipality is responsible for the accident by reason of not maintaining the roads, they will fight on your behalf against the municipality to deal with that original question: Who is responsible?
9.44 Automobile Damage Claim Against the City of Toronto
The Administration Committee had before it a communication (June 30, 2003) from the
City Clerk advising that City Council, at its meeting held on June 24, 25 and 26, 2003,
referred the following Motion to the Administration Committee:
Moved by: Councillor Nunziata
Seconded by: Councillor Milczyn
“WHEREAS on March 2, 2003, Ms. Mary Bianchini was travelling west bound
on Wilson Avenue, just before Weston Road where Ms. Bianchini went over a
very large pothole in the road; and
Administration Committee Minutes
Thursday, September 4, 2003.
40
WHEREAS the pothole was approximately 4 feet long, 2.5 feet wide and 8 inches
deep; and
WHEREAS resulting from the pothole both tires and rims on the passenger side
were damaged; and
WHEREAS two sets of tires and rims had to be changed at a cost of $1,153.90 at
a registered Honda Dealership; and
WHEREAS Ms. Bianchini reported the incident to the City of Toronto’s dispatch
centre where Ms. Bianchini was told that numerous calls had been received
concerning the same pothole; and
WHEREAS consequently, City of Toronto staff placed a pylon the next day to
caution drivers; and
WHEREAS Ms. Bianchini forwarded a letter to the Office of the City Clerk on
March 4, 2003, outlining the events and requesting that the City reimburse her for
the incurred expenses; and
WHEREAS the City of Toronto forwarded Ms. Bianchini’s letter to Ponton
Coleshill Edwards & Associates who are the Independent Insurance Adjusters
acting on behalf of the City of Toronto; and
WHEREAS on April 30, 2003, the City of Toronto’s Independent Insurance
Adjusters, Ponton Coleshill Edwards & Associates advised Ms. Bianchini that
under the Municipal Act, Section 44, a municipality shall keep the road in a
reasonable state of repair and that a municipality can not be held negligent if they
did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know about the
state of repair; and
WHEREAS the City’s Independent Insurance Adjusters investigation indicated
that the City inspected and acted in a reasonable time to repair the road and
accordingly did not find any negligence against the City and Ms. Bianchini’s
claim was denied; and
WHEREAS on reporting the incident to the City of Toronto’s dispatch centre,
Ms. Bianchini was told that numerous calls had been received concerning the
same pothole; and
WHEREAS since the City of Toronto in accordance with the Municipal Act,
Section 44, shall keep the road in a reasonable state of repair; and
Administration Committee Minutes
Thursday, September 4, 2003.
41
WHEREAS the City of Toronto was indeed aware of the state of repair due to the
high number of calls to the dispatch office;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Toronto accept full
responsibility for the lack of a reasonable state of repair and that the City of
Toronto reimburse Ms. Bianchini in the amount of $1,153.90;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the appropriate City officials be
authorized and directed to take necessary action to give effect thereto, including
the introduction in Council of any bills that may be required.”
On motion by Councillor Nunziata, the Administration
Committee received the foregoing communication having
regard that this issue has now been resolved.
The Administration Committee had before it a communication (June 30, 2003) from the
City Clerk advising that City Council, at its meeting held on June 24, 25 and 26, 2003,
referred the following Motion to the Administration Committee:
Moved by: Councillor Nunziata
Seconded by: Councillor Milczyn
“WHEREAS on March 2, 2003, Ms. Mary Bianchini was travelling west bound
on Wilson Avenue, just before Weston Road where Ms. Bianchini went over a
very large pothole in the road; and
Administration Committee Minutes
Thursday, September 4, 2003.
40
WHEREAS the pothole was approximately 4 feet long, 2.5 feet wide and 8 inches
deep; and
WHEREAS resulting from the pothole both tires and rims on the passenger side
were damaged; and
WHEREAS two sets of tires and rims had to be changed at a cost of $1,153.90 at
a registered Honda Dealership; and
WHEREAS Ms. Bianchini reported the incident to the City of Toronto’s dispatch
centre where Ms. Bianchini was told that numerous calls had been received
concerning the same pothole; and
WHEREAS consequently, City of Toronto staff placed a pylon the next day to
caution drivers; and
WHEREAS Ms. Bianchini forwarded a letter to the Office of the City Clerk on
March 4, 2003, outlining the events and requesting that the City reimburse her for
the incurred expenses; and
WHEREAS the City of Toronto forwarded Ms. Bianchini’s letter to Ponton
Coleshill Edwards & Associates who are the Independent Insurance Adjusters
acting on behalf of the City of Toronto; and
WHEREAS on April 30, 2003, the City of Toronto’s Independent Insurance
Adjusters, Ponton Coleshill Edwards & Associates advised Ms. Bianchini that
under the Municipal Act, Section 44, a municipality shall keep the road in a
reasonable state of repair and that a municipality can not be held negligent if they
did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know about the
state of repair; and
WHEREAS the City’s Independent Insurance Adjusters investigation indicated
that the City inspected and acted in a reasonable time to repair the road and
accordingly did not find any negligence against the City and Ms. Bianchini’s
claim was denied; and
WHEREAS on reporting the incident to the City of Toronto’s dispatch centre,
Ms. Bianchini was told that numerous calls had been received concerning the
same pothole; and
WHEREAS since the City of Toronto in accordance with the Municipal Act,
Section 44, shall keep the road in a reasonable state of repair; and
Administration Committee Minutes
Thursday, September 4, 2003.
41
WHEREAS the City of Toronto was indeed aware of the state of repair due to the
high number of calls to the dispatch office;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Toronto accept full
responsibility for the lack of a reasonable state of repair and that the City of
Toronto reimburse Ms. Bianchini in the amount of $1,153.90;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the appropriate City officials be
authorized and directed to take necessary action to give effect thereto, including
the introduction in Council of any bills that may be required.”
On motion by Councillor Nunziata, the Administration
Committee received the foregoing communication having
regard that this issue has now been resolved.
12-10-2009 | 03:47 PM
#7
Rennlist Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 4
From: Toronto, Ontario (Canada)
Hey Al, I am sure that watching you standing with your ruler in the middle of a busy Toronto street would make an interesting youtube video 
But please don't get killed in the process 
But please don't get killed in the process
Trending Topics
12-10-2009 | 05:04 PM
#8
Drifting
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 3
From: Ottawa, ON
Really sorry to hear about your wheels. How does the steering look?
Just to elaborate a little further on the measurement: lay a long straight edge across the hole, then measure straight down into it with one which is perpendicular to it. As was stated earlier, the more rigorous you are, the less you'll need to argue.
Just to elaborate a little further on the measurement: lay a long straight edge across the hole, then measure straight down into it with one which is perpendicular to it. As was stated earlier, the more rigorous you are, the less you'll need to argue.
12-10-2009 | 09:40 PM
#9
Captain Obvious
Super User
Super User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,846
Likes: 340
From: Cambridge, Ontario, Canada
Here's the kicker, if you tell the city about the pot hole and they fix it in a resonable amount of time (lets say 3 days), then they are not obligated to pay for your repair. If the pot hole is preported and they don't do anything about it, then you come along and drive into it, THEN you have a case to get compensated by the city.
I know this isn't fair at all, but this is how things are. As stated inthe above article, if the city doesn't know about a pot hole, they are not liable, but if they do and don't do anything abut it, then they are.
I know this isn't fair at all, but this is how things are. As stated inthe above article, if the city doesn't know about a pot hole, they are not liable, but if they do and don't do anything abut it, then they are.
12-11-2009 | 11:00 PM
#11
Rennlist Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,477
Likes: 546
From: Toronto Canada eh!
good luck Al. seems like a lot of effort for a couple of wheels and wheels are going very inexpensive on the second hand market.
on another note: that is what you get for slumming in scarberia.
and yes I agree our streets suck!
at least it wasn't a Pcar.
on another note: that is what you get for slumming in scarberia.
and yes I agree our streets suck!
at least it wasn't a Pcar.
12-14-2009 | 04:01 AM
#13
Advanced
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: The Motor City
I am curious to find out of this works in the States, or if it is a joke? I ask because my Dad and I have always had a bit of a contest going on, and he got the Turbo Jag, before I got my 911, and he messed up a couple of wheels on his ride, and even though it has been it has been 2 years since he got rid of it, he still walks around bitching about the damn thing! My concern isn't about his ride it is about mine. Here I have my Beautiful 996 and all he ever says is, "that I should be very careful on these Michigan Roads!" (And of course I agree!)
I guess that two of his wheels cost him almost $1,900 or something like that? He takes some perverse pleasure in reminding me that the roads here in Michigan suck. Yet he doesn't get that I: A) Don't drive my 996 in the winter. He was a dumbass who assumed it was like his 1974 Ford lincoln, in that he could drive it every day and in doing this the cost of the tires and the wheels would only be $150.00 for both (I have no idea why he was thinking this???) But like I said he always wants to try and keep up with me, soon enough he will learn he will have to pay like me too!
Of course this isn't the first time he has paid thru the snout for something to try and keep up with me, and on some things he never says anything, but every once in a while he will bring something up? I haven't seen him bring home a beautiful old school BMW yet, but somewhere in the back of my head he will. I catch him "eyeing" mine every once in a while.....
So if there is some way to sue the state for the size of the pot hole I will find it and I wiil keep everyone informed, or at least those who read this forum.
(For give me for the ypo's. the Dead are playing currently, and you just these guys out of your jease,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I guess that two of his wheels cost him almost $1,900 or something like that? He takes some perverse pleasure in reminding me that the roads here in Michigan suck. Yet he doesn't get that I: A) Don't drive my 996 in the winter. He was a dumbass who assumed it was like his 1974 Ford lincoln, in that he could drive it every day and in doing this the cost of the tires and the wheels would only be $150.00 for both (I have no idea why he was thinking this???) But like I said he always wants to try and keep up with me, soon enough he will learn he will have to pay like me too!
Of course this isn't the first time he has paid thru the snout for something to try and keep up with me, and on some things he never says anything, but every once in a while he will bring something up? I haven't seen him bring home a beautiful old school BMW yet, but somewhere in the back of my head he will. I catch him "eyeing" mine every once in a while.....
So if there is some way to sue the state for the size of the pot hole I will find it and I wiil keep everyone informed, or at least those who read this forum.
(For give me for the ypo's. the Dead are playing currently, and you just these guys out of your jease,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
12-14-2009 | 12:19 PM
#14
Race Car
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,792
Likes: 309
From: Toronto & Mont Tremblant
Small claims court is cheap ($75) and easy - it'll take you a couple of hours to file. In addition to the excellent info on muni responsibilites above, I remember a precedent from about 10 years ago in Leaside where a woman recovered $2K for a slide on black ice. Good luck Al.
