Crashed Porsche into concrete in missing of road can i claim from council

Guy:Incognito

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Well, in fairness to the OP, it looks pretty obvious because it is central to the topic of this thread and we are all concentrating on it. It might not be so obvious in normal night driving conditions where there are other distractions.

If your not paying attention, yes.

Golferx

FX Meister wrote: »

That's BS. The small claims court is for people who have bought goods or services for private use from someone selling them in the course of business. FACT

I'll quote from http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/justice/courts-system/small_claims_court

Claims can be made for faulty goods or bad workmanship. Claims can also be made for minor damage to property. Claims can no longer be made in the Small Claims Court for the non-return of rent deposits - this is now handled by the Private Residential Tenancies Board.

Claims cannot be made in the Small Claims Court for debts, personal injuries or breach of leasing agreements. The procedure is designed to deal with consumer claims up to 2,000 euro.

I'll also add two further items


1. I successfully claimed for damage to my car(s) from two Co Councils using the Small Claims Court. (FACT, as some smart ars.e might say.)

and

2. FX_Meister. Next time, don't be so quick off the mark, especially as you might just be wrong, again. I await your apology.

kikel

I think the OP has a claim. I'd love to hear how he gets on.

prospect

I think he has a claim also,

My dad did serious damage to his car in a pothole before. When he tried to claim he was told to fupp off. He was also told that the council are only liable when you damage your car on something installed by the council above the road surface level, but not below it (e.g. a pothole). I don't know if that was a fob off, but that is what he was told.

No harm in submitting your photos and a claim, and include you have Gardai as witnesses (witni !?)

MercMad

Golferx wrote: »

Council liability falls under the definition of FEASANCE Law.

While they are obliged to make any repair good, they cannot be held liable for the defect appearing in the first place, except if it is a previous repair which has become undone.

w.r.t. potholes? If it's a new pothole the Council are not liable, if it's an old pothole, which was repaired previously, you have a case due to defective repair.

.......this is exactly correct, and in this case it does appear there was a bollard previously so the Council would be negligent since they failed to repair the area !

However the fact is that if you "took it wide to avoid some kids " and mounted a kerb or island I think your driving behavious should be called into question ! You should have waited untill your path was clear, if the island wasn't there you could have hit another car, or something else !

Anyway............that's probably going off topic !

I would suggest that it IS worth persuing but get proper legal advice!

Ciaran500

MercMad wrote: »

.......this is exactly correct, and in this case it does appear there was a bollard previously so the Council would be negligent since they failed to repair the area !

Thats not what he said. They would be responsible if they had repaired it and he crashed because something was wrong with the repair. They aren't responsible because someone nicked the bollard.

roughan

deman wrote: »

A traffic island is NOT the road. Therefore, if you hit the traffic island, you went off the road. If anyone is on a high horse here it's the one driving a Porshe who doesn't seem to pay enough attention when driving. You swung out to avoid kids? Why didn't you just stop? Or were you in too big of a rush?

another hater .... cant even spell the car name properly

MercMad

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Thats not what he said. They would be responsible if they had repaired it and he crashed because something was wrong with the repair. They aren't responsible because someone nicked the bollard.

......how do you know the bollard was nicked ??

Either way, nicked/damaged/removed, the point was that it should have been there !

RobAMerc

the very least you have to do is try.
I think you should be entitled to claim - you pay road tax to use the roads if they aren't fit for purpose you surely have a claim.

OldmanMondeo

[QUOTE=MercMad;54234722Either way, nicked/damaged/removed, the point was that it should have been there ![/QUOTE]

So, If I crash into a car parked on a double yellow line, because either I am blind or had to avoid running over a load of puppies, the damage is the fault of the owner of the parked car? No, the Car was stationery, I hit it, my fault.**

The Traffic island is stationery, even though the bollard is gone, the light was still glowing from ground level, on a street that was well light, at a speed bump. I do not think the OP has a case. I would still feel the same no matter waht car the OP was driving.

**Did not actually happen.

Seth Brundle

TychoCaine wrote: »

And to save you the effort, the cops crashed into the same traffic island last week!

As the OP said:
"the Police were brilliant and totally agreed with me they told me they did the same thing last week but didnt want to say anything as they would have gotten in trouble"
In other words the gardai will deny anything to do with this! They cannot be relied upon as a witness!

roughan wrote: »

I dunno why pics are so slow they are on an 8mb line

8Mb is probably your download speed - possibly 256KB up!

roughan wrote: »

i drove OVER a traffic island that previously had a lit bollard on it
it was unlit and in there was 4 inches of concrete in the centre of the road
i could not see the island as it slopes into the road and there was no markings around it
any road should be safe to drive down the car could have easily gone on fire if the petrol tank was split by this
it was fixed in 2 hours by the council

There can be anything on the road. "4 inches of concrete" in the middle is not difficult to see, especially as the roadside end of it has a regular kerb. However, if you find that you cannot see the road in front of you then you have two options:
* drive at a speed suitable for the conditions
* don't drive

roughan wrote: »

No i did not go off the road

Technically I suspect that you drove onto a footpath to get from Camden St. to Grantham St. but leaving that aside, you mounted a kerbside bollard stump - these are normally not on the road!

roughan wrote: »

i did damage my car

So you admit that you damaged it!

roughan wrote: »

it is the councils fault

But you said that you damaged it!

roughan wrote: »

and i do want someone else to pay for this

Why? It was your fault!

roughan wrote: »

anyway was onto Guards /Insurance company about this and its all looking very positive in my favour

On what basis?

astraboy

OP, I would try claiming from the council. They will without doubt tell you where to go the first time. Then get a soliticors letter, with the incident outlined, photos included and a quote to fix the damage from a garage. At the end of the day the road(or traffic island) was not in proper condition and the fact they fixed it sharpish after the incident compounds this. I have heard of many cases taken against the council over potholes etc, keep pushing and you will be successful. Good luck with it!

O, the other posters slating the OP, go easy. He came on here for advice not a tongue lashing from people getting up on (*sigh*) their high horses as usuall on this site. You were not ther and do not know the full curcimstances of the incident, frankly having 4 inches of raised concrete in the middle of the road unmarked is dangerous and the council are liable!

Ciaran500

MercMad wrote: »

......how do you know the bollard was nicked ??

Either way, nicked/damaged/removed, the point was that it should have been there !

Don't know what happened but what you quoted earlier and agreed with was that if the council repairs something and that causes the damage to the car they are liable. But they are not liable for the bollard going missing in the first place.

wil

Dublin city council rarely respond that quickly to anything. That raises my suspicions immediately. Did the gardai report it? I know the spot, I'd say that bollard plastic fitting is replaced regularly. It a fairly recent addition and I am not sure of the idea behind it, may have something to do with no RHturn coming off Camden St(IIRC) or no RHturn coming off Grantham (TIRC).

The whole section is raised as in a gentle speedbump, again I am not sure to what end, and the traffic island slopes to flush with the road, which I think may be a issue in itself. The bollard without the plastic fitting could be effectively invisible, at least from certain angles, there are no road markings.

Having spoken directly to DCC engineers in the past I am fairly sure they have strict engineering guidelines for all such road fittings and I dont see how this one complies with my understanding of some of what I learned. It could be argued it is little more than a rock in the road if there is no lit plastic fitting on top, and in the dark while observing pedestrians you might not expect to meet such an unmarked obstacle. There may indeed be engineering guidelines that require the plastic fitting. I suspect this is a recurring problem they are aware of, realise it and thus addressed it in hours when it had been neglected for days or weeks. Dont know if legally that implies responsibility.

I can understand the gardai not wanting to report it in their case. When a garda driver has a knock and reports if officially they are taken off the road for 6 weeks. A bangarda winged my door mirror while responding to a call and paid for it out of her own pocket rather than going through the official procedures and be stuck behind a desk.

You cant deny bearing at least a percentage of responsibility for failing to observe the lump, for entering the road on the wrong side of the central margin, and possibly for doing so quicker than you should considering there were pedestrians already crossing. You are supposed to give way to pedestrians already crossing, not go around them. This latter is a common compaint I would have about many drivers here, zipping around obstacles (parked cars/bikes/pedestrians) on to the wrong side of the road in to the path of oncoming traffic:eek: as if they have right of way, rather than slowing/anticipating and passing safely. (I assume there was no oncoming traffic approaching/coming out of that junction in your case, if there was:mad:, dangerous driving and several points would be proper order)

All said I suspect that having installed the bollard and failing to maintain it in a timely fashion, much of the onus lies with Dublin council. Good luck with it.:)

roughan

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

So, If I crash into a car parked on a double yellow line, because either I am blind or had to avoid running over a load of puppies, the damage is the fault of the owner of the parked car? No, the Car was stationery, I hit it, my fault.**

The Traffic island is stationery, even though the bollard is gone, the light was still glowing from ground level, on a street that was well light, at a speed bump. I do not think the OP has a case. I would still feel the same no matter waht car the OP was driving.

**Did not actually happen.

THE light was also broken and not glowing

roughan

astraboy wrote: »

OP, I would try claiming from the council. They will without doubt tell you where to go the first time. Then get a soliticors letter, with the incident outlined, photos included and a quote to fix the damage from a garage. At the end of the day the road(or traffic island) was not in proper condition and the fact they fixed it sharpish after the incident compounds this. I have heard of many cases taken against the council over potholes etc, keep pushing and you will be successful. Good luck with it!

O, the other posters slating the OP, go easy. He came on here for advice not a tongue lashing from people getting up on (*sigh*) their high horses as usuall on this site. You were not ther and do not know the full curcimstances of the incident, frankly having 4 inches of raised concrete in the middle of the road unmarked is dangerous and the council are liable!

Thanks for your kind words
at least someone has some sense

JHMEG

OP, I think you would have a good case for claiming all or part of the bill from the local authority.

But: they could argue that you swung wide to avoid kids, and if the lit up bollard had been there you still would have hit it and probably done more damage.

[BTW, I think posting in the title that you whacked your Porsche will probably irk some people and provoke a unfavourable responses. But that's life.]

OldmanMondeo

roughan wrote: »

THE light was also broken and not glowing

Sorry, just looked at the picture again and your are very correct. I still don't think you have much, if any, of a case. take some legeal advise and lets us know how you get on. I would guess laws and bye laws would protect the council though.

roughan

kbannon wrote: »

As the OP said:
"the Police were brilliant and totally agreed with me they told me they did the same thing last week but didnt want to say anything as they would have gotten in trouble"
In other words the gardai will deny anything to do with this! They cannot be relied upon as a witness!
8Mb is probably your download speed - possibly 256KB up!
There can be anything on the road. "4 inches of concrete" in the middle is not difficult to see, especially as the roadside end of it has a regular kerb. However, if you find that you cannot see the road in front of you then you have two options:
* drive at a speed suitable for the conditions
* don't drive
Technically I suspect that you drove onto a footpath to get from Camden St. to Grantham St. but leaving that aside, you mounted a kerbside bollard stump - these are normally not on the road!
So you admit that you damaged it!
But you said that you damaged it!
Why? It was your fault!
On what basis?

* spends way too much time watching matlock,CSI etc

keefg

My 2c..

OP, I wish you the best of luck with your claim, but I don't think you have much of a case looking at your description of events & photo's.

If I am reading the incident right, "some kids" were either just about to cross the road or were almost accross.

If that is the case then you should have stopped your car until they were completely off the road before proceeding. I don't have a copy of the Irish rules of the road to hand but if I can remember (I took my test a long time ago) in the UK if you approach a T-Junction and a pedestrian is waiting to cross the road then they have right of way and the motorist must stop.

If, as you say, "swerved" to avoid these kids, this indicates that you were either driving too fast for the conditions and layout of the road or you were too impatient to wait until the kids crossed the road and mounted the traffic island causing the damage to your car..


PS. I am not gonna bash you for your choice of car just wish I had the dosh for one myself

craichoe

The Council have two days to repair a hazard from the first time its reported.

If its fixed within the two days of reporting their not liable

If its not fixed within two days you have a case.

In you instance you have no case.

Seen this happen many a time ! It's all regulated after the mass of public injury claims from a few years back

Golferx

craichoe wrote: »

The Council have two days to repair a hazard from the first time its reported.

If its fixed within the two days of reporting their[sic] not liable

If its not fixed within two days you have a case.

In you instance you have no case.

Seen[sic] this happen many a time ! It's all regulated after the mass of public injury claims from a few years back

Pray tell where did you pull this from?

How, in God's name, is someone to know when a problem was reported? (In this situation how do you know when, if at all, the problem was reported?)

Far too often a question is asked on this BB which is then answered by heresay.


Two days notification is baloney. Look at my previous posts about FEASANCE Law. Look it up and you'll see if you have a case.

deman

roughan wrote: »

another hater .... cant even spell the car name properly

It would seem to me that the OP is getting desperate and resorting to insults if someone disagrees with him (it was a typo, I made a mistake which is more than you can admit to). If the OP cannot take criticism for his negligence, I suggest he don't come on again with his "look at me in my Porsche" attitude. It plain to see what has happened IMO.

1. Pride/Arrogance or whatever you want to call. The OP was probably too busy looking at the kids to see if they were admiring his car and therefore didn't notice the bollard.

or

2. The OP was going to fast to stop and let the kids cross the road like a sensible and law-abiding driver would have done.

BTW, if the accident had happened the way the OP says it happened, why aren't the kids used as witnesses. My guess is because the OP doesn't want them to tell the Gardai anything.

The OP has given irrelevant information we don't need to hear ie. the type of car he was driving, and has probably also neglected to give us relevant information we do need to hear.

In any case, if I find a hat, I'll eat it if the OP has a case here and wins.

roughan

deman wrote: »

It would seem to me that the OP is getting desperate and resorting to insults if someone disagrees with him (it was a typo, I made a mistake which is more than you can admit to). If the OP cannot take criticism for his negligence, I suggest he don't come on again with his "look at me in my Porsche" attitude. It plain to see what has happened IMO.

1. Pride/Arrogance or whatever you want to call. The OP was probably too busy looking at the kids to see if they were admiring his car and therefore didn't notice the bollard.


2. The OP was going to fast to stop and let the kids cross the road like a sensible and law-abiding driver would have done.

BTW, if the accident had happened the way the OP says it happened, why aren't the kids used as witnesses. My guess is because the OP doesn't want them to tell the Gardai anything.

The OP has given irrelevant information we don't need to hear ie. the type of car he was driving, and has probably also neglected to give us relevant information we do need to hear.

In any case, if I find a hat, I'll eat it if the OP has a case here and wins.

Jesus i posted this to seek advice not some Jealous Ned Flanders
how can you go fast around a 90 degree corner???
the pyjamas brigade were hanging on chatting at the street corner
they had all scattered when the police arrived

are u serious in telling me i drive around looking for people who look at the car ???? ie 15 year old girls maybe you cruise around town looking for 15 year olds in pyjamas to look at you but i dont .
the police told me there was no problem about them acting as witness as the road was dangerous

get off your high horse did anything ever happen to you in your life

i suppose the only question to ask you is what type of sauce you want to go with your hat

roughan

Anyway after it happened i was FAR to busy to prevent the car going on Fire and moving it away from other cars to go over and get the locals Name and address

roughan

Ok looked it up ....

"
Feasance law exempts the Council from any liability from a naturally occurring hazard, like a pothoe as the Council cannot be expected to prevent such a hazard occurring. "



is a missing bollard and a broken light a naturally occurring hazard ?

craichoe

Golferx wrote: »

Pray tell where did you pull this from?

How, in God's name, is someone to know when a problem was reported? (In this situation how do you know when, if at all, the problem was reported?)

Far too often a question is asked on this BB which is then answered by heresay.


Two days notification is baloney. Look at my previous posts about FEASANCE Law. Look it up and you'll see if you have a case.

Legal action taken by an individual last year against Kerry County Council for damage that occured in Tralee. Oil had been spilt on the road and as a result the person driving the car went into a lampost. It didnt even get as far as court as the mess was cleaned up a few hours later. There was no record of it being reported previously.

His solicitor advised him that if it had been reported previously and hadn't been cleaned up within that period then the council would be liable as they had a sufficient amount of time to rectify the road hazard.

Check with a solicitor if you like. I can only tell you what happened. He claimed off his insurance (fully comprehensive) and took the hit on his NCB.

The two days is there to give them a reasonable amount of time to rectify the issue. If they don't know about a problem then they can't fix it.

I'd contact them and find out if anyone reported that it was damaged (apparently they have to give out this information). I doubt it was, but if it was your in luck. If not your boned.

roughan

the common law rule known as “the non-feasance rule”.

According to this rule, highway
authorities are under no duty to undertake active measures to safeguard persons using their roads
against dangers which make them unsafe for normal use, except in respect of dangers they have created or
where there is a statutory provision to the contrary.

Guy:Incognito

At the end of the day, If there was a concret block in the middle of the road, you should be paying enough attention to not drive over it. This hazard was bigger than a block. and in the middle of 2 lanes.

You were effectively overtaking a hazard on the wrong side of the road through a corner.

craichoe

Stekelly wrote: »

At the end of the day, If there was a concret block in the middle of the road, you should be paying enohg attention to not drive over it. This hazard was bigger than a block. and in the middle of 2 lanes.

YOu were effectively overtaking a hazard on the worng side of the road through a corner.

Jesus christ .. give the man a break .. he just wrecked his porsche, you sound like a granny going on about young people