Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

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

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    roughan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭roughan


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

    HAHAHA cheers !! :)


  • Options
    #63
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


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

    Ok so, everyone should barrel around, deathrace 2000 style, driving over kids and animals, carreering through crash barriers and then coming on here to whinge that someone else should pay for their cars.


    Grow up, the guy ****ed up through poor driveing/judgement. his own fault, no one elses.

    I sound like a granny because I say he should be paying attention to the road while driving? the shame of it, imagine having to watch where your going when driving.:rolleyes: If I was driving an expensive car (I do it when I drive my 97 van so cant see why I wouldnt with a Porsche)I'd be watching what I was doing so I didnt hit bollards, kerbs etc. Although some of us obviously have a different approach to driving....


  • Options
    #64
    deman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,672 ✭✭✭deman


    roughan wrote: »
    Jesus i posted this to seek advice not some Jealous Ned Flanders
    Am I jealous of you having a Porsche? Well who wouldn't like to have a Porsche? I gave you my opinion and you refuse to accept that I think you don't have a case.
    roughan wrote: »
    how can you go fast around a 90 degree corner???
    I implied too fast to stop.
    roughan wrote: »
    maybe you cruise around town looking for 15 year olds in pyjamas to look at you but i dont .
    Your insults are getting personal which is a sign of desperation. I have not insulted you personally and I'd appreciate if you could keep your insults to yourself. I could report you for this but I'm not going to.
    Oh and I do expect an apology.
    roughan wrote: »
    the police told me there was no problem about them acting as witness as the road was dangerous
    So you say.
    roughan wrote: »
    get off your high horse did anything ever happen to you in your life
    As a matter of fact, yes. My two older kids, my wife and I were seriously injured in a car accident last year because of some a$$hole who wasn't watching what he was doing and didn't have the balls to admit he was wrong.

    All I've done with my cross examination is point out facts, facts that the council or whoever it is you claim from will also point out. If you go around insulting them like you've done me, you're totally screwed.


  • Options
    #65
    cashmni1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 629 ✭✭✭cashmni1


    I think OP should at least be entitled to claim.
    OP swung wide or whatever. The point is that there was an obstacle on the main thoroughfare where there should not have been one. Or to put it another way, the council left it in an unfinished state. The council then finished the job. Too late for the driver of the Porsche. (I'll use spell check).
    Off road is done by 4x4's and yes, I would also have used the car name in the original thread name, he/she should be very proud to be an owner of such a finely admired marque.
    I know I would Love one !!


  • Options
    #66
    Mr. Presentable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,496 ✭✭✭Mr. Presentable


    The Council/Corpo are liable for the damage provided they knew there was a missing bollard and said bollard was designed to indicate the obstruction. You need only prove they were aware and neglected to fix it, and you win.

    I don't know how you could prove it though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Golferx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭Golferx


    craichoe wrote: »
    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.

    I wouldn't take what a solicitor would say as being Gospel. It's far from being a Legal obligation.

    How can you tell if they have been notified about a problem? You cannot, and , sure as hell, I wouldn't expect any council to retain the time and date of their first notification of a problem.

    (With an oil spill, the fault lies with whoever created the spill, not the authority who's task is to clean it up! However, once the council attend to the problem there is a legal obligation on them to make good the situation.)

    Other posts have backed up my previous one. Look at feasance law and you'll find how a council can evade the blame for hazards.


  • Options
    #68
    Mr. Presentable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,496 ✭✭✭Mr. Presentable


    roughan wrote: »
    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.

    Where did you find this quote? I can only find it in Australian law :confused:


  • Options
    #69
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,727 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    roughan wrote: »
    * spends way too much time watching matlock,CSI etc
    Not sure why it was necessary to post that but if you lodge a claim then surely the local authority will use someone who will also look at the situation analitically to find out all information.
    roughan wrote: »
    Jesus i posted this to seek advice not some Jealous Ned Flanders
    Firstly, I can't speak for others but Im not jealous. If I wanted a Porsche I'd get one!
    Secondly, your original post does not seek advice - it just tells us your opinion of the incident. However, assuming they you were in fact seeking advice, don't get defensive if you don't like the advice being offered.


  • Options
    #70
    craichoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭craichoe


    Golferx wrote: »
    I wouldn't take what a solicitor would say as being Gospel. It's far from being a Legal obligation.

    How can you tell if they have been notified about a problem? You cannot, and , sure as hell, I wouldn't expect any council to retain the time and date of their first notification of a problem.

    (With an oil spill, the fault lies with whoever created the spill, not the authority who's task is to clean it up! However, once the council attend to the problem there is a legal obligation on them to make good the situation.)

    Other posts have backed up my previous one. Look at feasance law and you'll find how a council can evade the blame for hazards.

    So by that argument your saying the person who damaged the bollard in the first place is liable ? You are indeed correct, but its the council who cleans/repairs the damage. If they don't do this in a reasonable time their liable. Why do you think they repaired it straight after there was an accident ?

    If there was no issue here, or possible comeback on them why would they bother ?

    Sorry, have to disagree on this one.

    As i said if you don't believe me consult a solicitor, i still believe he is more qualified than you in this respect as its his job.


  • Options
    #71
    keefg
    Registered Users Posts: 3,187 ✭✭✭keefg


    kbannon wrote: »
    If I wanted a Porsche I'd get one!

    :D:D:D very good.......you got any spare dosh KB so the rest of us peasants can get one?:p


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    cashmni1 wrote: »
    the council left it in an unfinished state.

    Where does it say that? The most likely reson for it being the way it was was that some gob****e drove over it.


  • Options
    #73
    richie_rvf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 232 ✭✭richie_rvf


    I think you should try to claim.

    I have claimed twice from the CC, Meath and Louth, twice I damaged the sidewall on a front tyre (about 2 years between incidents) because of 1, a pothole and 2, a repair in the road that was not marked and pretty much invisible and also impossible to avoid if there was oncoming traffic

    Twice I was successful, first time took about 10 months to receive the cheque and the second time I had given up only to receive a cheque almost 18 months later :eek:

    OK, 'maybe' you could have avoided it, but, you were avoiding pedestrians and at night that obstacle would have been difficult to see, especially as you were keeping an eye out for other hazards - like pedestrians.

    I think the fact that it was repaired so soon after your accident means that they were already aware of the issue and so should have had temporary markings to alert people.

    If a pedestrian had tripped on it they would definitely be held liable.

    Try it - you have nothing to loose!

    Richie.


  • Options
    #74
    cps_goodbuy
    Registered Users Posts: 327 ✭✭cps_goodbuy


    keefg wrote: »
    :D:D:D very good.......you got any spare dosh KB so the rest of us peasants can get one?:p


    Oh that really depends, they can be quite cheap actually ;)

    Though insurance for under 25s is a b*tch.


  • Options
    #75
    keefg
    Registered Users Posts: 3,187 ✭✭✭keefg


    cps_goodbuy wrote: »

    Though insurance for under 25s is a b*tch.

    I will take that as a compliment :), it has been a long time since I have had to worry about insurance costs because of my age:(


  • Options
    #76
    deman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,672 ✭✭✭deman


    richie_rvf wrote: »
    I think you should try to claim.

    I have claimed twice from the CC, Meath and Louth, twice I damaged the sidewall on a front tyre (about 2 years between incidents) because of 1, a pothole and 2, a repair in the road that was not marked and pretty much invisible and also impossible to avoid if there was oncoming traffic

    As mentioned before, these incidents occured while you were driving ON the road, not off it.
    richie_rvf wrote: »
    OK, 'maybe' you could have avoided it, but, you were avoiding pedestrians and at night that obstacle would have been difficult to see, especially as you were keeping an eye out for other hazards - like pedestrians.

    The law states that the driver must yield to the pedestrian until they have crossed the road, not swerve around them.
    richie_rvf wrote: »
    Try it - you have nothing to loose!

    Except the time of those involved, solicitor fees and/or NCB in if came to that.


  • Options
    #77
    richie_rvf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 232 ✭✭richie_rvf


    deman wrote: »
    As mentioned before, these incidents occured while you were driving ON the road, not off it.



    The law states that the driver should stop until the pedestrian crosses the road, not swerve around them.



    Except the time of those involved, solicitor fees and/or NCB in if came to that.

    True, I was, and yes, you are right about coming to a stop rather than swerving.

    With regard to the other people involved, I just sent in a letter of complaint along with photos and they paid out.

    I still think there should have been some sort of markings/barrier around the damaged bollard though, the council were leaving themselves open for a claim from a pedestrian at least.

    Anyway - I am no expert on this by any means - all just my opinion :)


  • Options
    #78
    keefg
    Registered Users Posts: 3,187 ✭✭✭keefg


    deman wrote: »


    The law states that the driver must yield to the pedestrian until they have crossed the road, not swerve around them.


    For what it's worth (bugger all really) I agree here.

    Sorry OP, you should have stopped. If you had to swerve because you could not stop in time then that just implies that you were going too fast.


  • Options
    #79
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,727 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    keefg wrote: »
    :D:D:D very good.......you got any spare dosh KB so the rest of us peasants can get one?:p
    There are loads on Carzone under €30K


  • Options
    #80
    deman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,672 ✭✭✭deman


    Roughan

    Still waiting for that apology after your personal insult towards me. Or aren't you man enough to admit when you're wrong.


  • Options
    #81
    edanto
    Registered Users Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    I don't think it matters that the bollard was gone. Having said that, the island is small and if I took the corner too wide, I might have hit it myself.

    But do you have a case? Hell no. You were on the wrong side of the road, and crossed a (obscured by dirt) continuous white line to mount a traffic island.

    But hey take the case to court. You're obviously feeling hard done by, looking for someone to blame and if you need some old guy in a wig to slap you down before you'll believe all of us 'old grannies' that are jealous of your Porsche, knock yourself out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    deman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,672 ✭✭✭deman


    edanto wrote: »
    But hey take the case to court. You're obviously feeling hard done by, looking for someone to blame and if you need some old guy in a wig to slap you down before you'll believe all of us 'old grannies' that are jealous of your Porsche, knock yourself out.

    LOL. Couldn't have worded it better myself :D


  • Options
    #83
    roughan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭roughan


    UPDATE!!!!!
    **** just got a quote from Porsche for 9.6k Damage to car and
    JUST RECIEVED AN ADMISSION OF LIABILITY FROM THE COUNCILS CLAIMS HANDLER I WILL HAVE MY CHQ IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS!!!!!!!!
    woooo hoOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  • Options
    #84
    omega man
    Registered Users Posts: 4,863 ✭✭✭omega man


    deman wrote: »
    Roughan

    Still waiting for that apology after your personal insult towards me. Or aren't you man enough to admit when you're wrong.

    Deman would you ever get a life! Having just gone through this thread and read comments YOU made like:

    '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.'

    I believe the OP may or may not have a case but knowone here will be the judge of that. I think if his car was a standard run of the mill family car or something then there would have been more sympathy! Why shouldnt he state it was a Porsche? It makes a better story and the cost for him is higher imo.


  • Options
    #85
    richie_rvf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 232 ✭✭richie_rvf


    Nasty bill - sure you are relieved!!!

    Congrats - just shows you, the various councils do pay out after all!

    Richie.


  • Options
    #86
    omega man
    Registered Users Posts: 4,863 ✭✭✭omega man


    roughan wrote: »
    UPDATE!!!!!
    **** just got a quote from Porsche for 9.6k Damage to car and
    JUST RECIEVED AN ADMISSION OF LIABILITY FROM THE COUNCILS CLAIMS HANDLER I WILL HAVE MY CHQ IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS!!!!!!!!
    woooo hoOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Nice one. Im sure there will be a few red faced individuals on this forum now.


  • Options
    #87
    roughan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭roughan


    deman wrote: »

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

    DO YOU WANT ME TO FIND A HAT FOR YOU ?
    ALSO WAITING ON APOLOGY


  • Options
    #88
    Noelie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 999 ✭✭✭Noelie


    roughan wrote: »
    UPDATE!!!!!
    **** just got a quote from Porsche for 9.6k Damage to car and
    JUST RECIEVED AN ADMISSION OF LIABILITY FROM THE COUNCILS CLAIMS HANDLER I WILL HAVE MY CHQ IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS!!!!!!!!
    woooo hoOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If that is true it's a shocking waste of tax payers money.
    The incident was your fault, if you hadn't have been so impatient you wouldn't have wrecked your car and wouldn't have cost everyone else money.


  • Options
    #89
    roughan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭roughan


    omega man wrote: »
    Deman would you ever get a life! Having just gone through this thread and read comments YOU made like:

    '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.'

    I believe the OP may or may not have a case but knowone here will be the judge of that. I think if his car was a standard run of the mill family car or something then there would have been more sympathy! Why shouldnt he state it was a Porsche? It makes a better story and the cost for him is higher imo.

    CHEERS FOR THAT


  • Options
    #90
    deman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,672 ✭✭✭deman


    I'll get my coat.

    Congrats OP (you can buy me a hat and some peppered sauce with your money)

    Omega Man

    The questions that I asked were questions I was sure that the council's insurance company would have asked. I didn't make this personal. It was just a cross examination until the OP started getting personal with me.

    I don't know you Omega Man. You don't know me. So how can you tell me to get a life. I wouldn't swap my life with anyone.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    roughan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭roughan


    Noelie wrote: »
    If that is true it's a shocking waste of tax payers money.
    The incident was your fault, if you hadn't have been so impatient you wouldn't have wrecked your car and wouldn't have cost everyone else money.

    HARDLY !!! IF IT WAS MY FAULT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE PAID OUT !!!!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement