Just to give you some background info:
I was the one who got the blowout in Asheville a few months back right at the beginning of the Dragon run. I hit that huge hole and bent the shit out of my RacingHart.

Well, I went ahead and filed a claim to the Department of Transportation, claiming $800 in damages ($675 for new RH, and $125 for the temp replacement rim I needed to get home on).
They told me it could take up to 3 months, and it did just that. 3 months on the dot.

The denied my claim, but check out why.
They said that the claim was rejected because the law states (a law that they wrote up) that they are not responsible for damages caused by something they were not aware of.
They said that if they knew it was there, and then it messed up my car, then I could claim negligence on their part for not repairing something they knew about.

So basically, they have a loophole where they can just say "We didn't know about it" to anything, and deny any responsibility.

THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!

Thats like McDonalds saying that they were not responsible for the burns because they didn't know they coffee was hot.
What kind of crap is that.

Any lawyers out there know anything about this.
Advice?

They are sending me papers for an appeal.

 

Actually, the lawsuit that McDonalds lost for their coffee causing burns was lost on the grounds that they had known for a long time (hundreds of complaints and burns) that their coffee was served dangerously hot.

Unless you can prove they knew about the pothole you should probably just pack it up. It is tough to win a lawsuit against the government. Plus you risk losing a lot more with attorney fees and your own time.


Hugh

 

I think a law like that is unconstitutional. Employers can be sued in sexual harrassment cases even if they didn't know it happened, courts always say ignorance is no excuse for the law, so not knowing about a pothole shouldn't make them exempt. After all, they built the road and should be responsible for its defects. You could appeal it but it would be more then $800 in legal fees so you should ask for them to pay court costs and fees if you win, if you appeal it.

 

So unless they know about it, I cannot claim any damages?

I realize that this is a lost cause, and it doesn't pay to get a lawyer and all that, but it sucks.

Lets say I'm a property owner. Am I not responsible for that property and whatever happens on it (spilled water at a supermarket causing someone to fall and brake a leg). Can they not sue me?

It doesn'y seem fair or constitutional.

 

In a very, very basic sense, that law is trying to draw a line in the sand between negligence by the DOT and wrongdoing by the DOT.

I'm curious, do the have to have "actual knowledge" of the pothole, or is it possible to argue that they should have known about it (commonly referred to as "constructive knowledge")?

If the latter, then you might have a case, since the Dragon is a highly-travelled and storied road that must be known by the DOT for its reputation. You might be able to argue that the DOT has a higher standard of safety to maintain on such a road. A truly twisted argument -- and one that might circle around to bite you in the ass, since it also implies that you were driving unsafely! I love lawyering!

 

Sorry to hear of this continuing bummer .

Would it be possible to make a claim under your automobile's comprehensive policy? Just a thought - hope it helps.

BTW, how much are replacement Supra rims? . Do they vibrate when you exceed the speed of sound in that awesome machine?

 

It isn't exactly appropriate to compare the liability of the government on public property to the liability of an individual property owner.

A private property owner can be sued and loose because their sidewalk or driveway is icy and somebody falls. Does that mean the government (City, State or Federal) should be liable when a car skids off the road because it hits an icy patch?

Damage to roads is generally an act of god (Weather and wear and tear) and since the Government didn't cause the damage and were not aware of it they can't be held responsible because if they were the general liability would be astronomical, definitely a tax increase would be in order. (A federally protected bear attacks hikers on public property, a tree in a national forest falls and kills a hiker, somebody drowns at a public beach etc. I think you can see how absurd this would get if private property liability were extrapolated to public property)

The courts have used different standards for common property (publicly owned by the citizens of the U.S. not the government) pretty much since day one. It is constitutional though it might not always make sense.

Hugh

 

If you can find somebody who made the same claim before you, then perhaps you'll have a case. If something like that happened to you, there's a very good chance that pothole got someone else too. Hopefully, one of the victims tried to file a claim like you did.

 

A couple of thoughts on this one. To prove that they knew about it, you are going to have to discover that someone complained about it or that the DOT made a note of it requiring repair. The way to do this is finding out whatever the equivalent of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) in that state is and filing a request under state law. You might send the agency denying the claim a "courtesy copy" of the request. They may decide its worth paying than spending the time putting together your information. Beyond that, the time and effort of a suit is probably going to far outweigh the cost of replacing the rim and tire.

 

CoralDoc, I don't want to go through insurance. Deductable is $500, and I don't need that affecting my premiums (they're high enough as it is). Replacement Supra rims, huh. The $800 claim would have probably bought one.

I guess they know that it won't be worth fighting an $800 claim and that its a lost cause for me.

I just thought I'd let you guys know about the continuing bad luck with that car.