| e46 |
i heard someone talking about this and just wanted to see if it was true
if i bend a rim because of a pot hole, can i get the city to pay for it? |
|
|
| newaccorddriver |
| the city has to pay for it if that pothole has already been reported and they know about it, and i think you have to prove the pothole somehow bent the rim as well |
|
|
| e46 |
| so can i get them to pay for new struts which are effed as a result of 100s of pot holes through out the city |
|
|
| newaccorddriver |
| hard to say on the strut. a strut naturally wears down over time and use, the potholes just accelerated the wear since its so hard on it. you might have to prove that the pothole was the reason your strut is blown, otherwise they cant do much about it. a bent rim is alot easier to prove them a blown strut, but its worth a try. |
|
|
| anschutz_93 |
You are better off just not running 35 series tires or lower on our roads. If you must throw 18 on your car because it looks sooo much more balla' than 17/16's just accept the fact that if you do hit a pothole you will probably bend a rim. If you run a 45 series tire, unless you hit one hell of a pothole (which you should be able to avoid, cause its going to be pretty damn large) you will probably never bend/crack your rim.
I don't know where you guys find all this time to dick around with the city. Better off just saving the hassle and put some tires with reasonable sidewall on your car. |
|
|
| e46 |
/\ lol im running 19s with 35 sidewall....
i've hit a few big potholes and no problems so far... i was just asking |
|
|
| HEWSINATOR |
quote:
Originally posted by newaccorddriver
the city has to pay for it if that pothole has already been reported and they know about it, and i think you have to prove the pothole somehow bent the rim as well
Reason you say they have to pay if it is reported? The city is responsible for how many kms of road compared to a normal citizen having to shovel their walk. It may be reasonable in the circumstances for the city to not have gotten around to fixing it, or better yet, it may be a policy decision the city to not fix, etc... In that case, the city, as I understand, would not be liable.
The city would have to be negligent and caused the damage. There there would have to be a duty of care to the car driver and the city would have had to have breached the standard of care owed.
Policy decisions, that is questions about whether and how to implement some sort of Crown initiative, is not subject to a duty of care. However, operational decisions, decisions taken after adopting the policy, and go to how policy is implemented, are subject to a duty of care.
This distinction is hard to make, and I am sure there is precedent on the very topic of potholes.
None of this is intended to be relied on but is simply the law as I understand it, which may not be very well. |
|
|
| BLOCKER |
I don't know the number, you will have to do some digging, but the city has been known to pay for damages as a result of potholes...
I know a few guys who have done this. |
|
|
| GOT BOOST |
quote:
Originally posted by HEWSINATOR
Reason you say they have to pay if it is reported? The city is responsible for how many kms of road compared to a normal citizen having to shovel their walk. It may be reasonable in the circumstances for the city to not have gotten around to fixing it, or better yet, it may be a policy decision the city to not fix, etc... In that case, the city, as I understand, would not be liable.
The city would have to be negligent and caused the damage. There there would have to be a duty of care to the car driver and the city would have had to have breached the standard of care owed.
Policy decisions, that is questions about whether and how to implement some sort of Crown initiative, is not subject to a duty of care. However, operational decisions, decisions taken after adopting the policy, and go to how policy is implemented, are subject to a duty of care.
This distinction is hard to make, and I am sure there is precedent on the very topic of potholes.
None of this is intended to be relied on but is simply the law as I understand it, which may not be very well.
The city has a responsibility to ensure that the roadways are maintained and safe. We employ the city crews and their services via our taxes we pay. What is wrong with making them pay for damages for them neglecting to follow through on their end to keep the city streets reasonable to drive on?
It can be done. Best thing for the OP to do is DOCUMENT EVERYTHING.
The city will try to find a way out of it. Take pictures of the pothole, location, time of day you hit it, road conditions, weather conditions, sinage, etc. The more you have, the less they can deny it. :D
I believe you just call the general complaint line and proceed from there. If they blow you off, write a nice letter to them. :D It is a lot more difficult to ignore a letter as it is a phone call. :D
Mike |
|
|
| HEWSINATOR |
| Explaining it on CTV right now. |
|
|
| GOT BOOST |
quote:
Originally posted by HEWSINATOR
Explaining it on CTV right now.
Interesting,
I am still in the office and am not able to see it.
I am sure I can catch the article online later.
Mike |
|
|
| HEWSINATOR |
quote:
Originally posted by GOT BOOST
The city has a responsibility to ensure that the roadways are maintained and safe. We employ the city crews and their services via our taxes we pay. What is wrong with making them pay for damages for them neglecting to follow through on their end to keep the city streets reasonable to drive on?
Mike
It would be impossible for the city to know where every pothole is, and to fix it immediately. We do not require the gov to do everything. They are forced to make budgetary decisions and such all the time, and the gov is not liable for those.
If the city, say, chose as a policy decision to only fix potholes in one region of the city a year, it may be that they are not liable.
Potholes may be a bit of their own beast, but there is a case where the gov chose not to sand the road, and was not liable. With the quoted logic, we require our gov to sand roads, so why not hold them responsible for damage that is the result of this? The answer is that we also require our gov to make budget decisions.
All I did was explain a bit about how I understand Government liability. It is not the same as private citizens all the time.
Got boost, I reread this and I do not intend it to be a pissing match, but just some things to maybe consider (and confirm/verify) when thinking about suing the gov.
All the above is not intended to be relied on. I may be wrong |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
There was a story in either the Sun or the Journal recently... they had a pic of a cabbie pointing out some damage to his car ont he front page... and they even said how much the city paid out last year on damage claims to cars.
I have moster tires(ok, not as large as some 265-65-17) and I still try to avoid pot holes |
|
|
| GOT BOOST |
quote:
Originally posted by HEWSINATOR
It would be impossible for the city to know where every pothole is, and to fix it immediately. We do not require the gov to do everything. They are forced to make budgetary decisions and such all the time, and the gov is not liable for those.
If the city, say, chose as a policy decision to only fix potholes in one region of the city a year, it may be that they are not liable.
Potholes may be a bit of their own beast, but there is a case where the gov chose not to sand the road, and was not liable. With the quoted logic, we require our gov to sand roads, so why not hold them responsible for damage that is the result of this? The answer is that we also require our gov to make budget decisions.
All I did was explain a bit about how I understand Government liability. It is not the same as private citizens all the time.
All the above is not intended to be relied on. I may be wrong
While it is nearly impossible to detect small potholes, it is very obvious that major ones can be detected and repaired in a timely fashion.
Why have public works and streets trucks driving around? Why have pothole repair crews out repairing potholes. With good planning the city can repair quickly and efficiently these potholes. I am not talking about the small ones, I am talking about the gigantic ones that seem to be there for weeks or months on end.
Sorry pal, but if it comes to me busting up my suspension on a pothole and writing a formal letter of complaint or hitting someone else beside me to avoide the crater, I will bust up my suspension write a formal letter and send the tab to the city.
We elected these clowns, it is time we hold them responsible on more issues than the road ways.
Mike |
|
|
| e46 |
ok so one of my friends hit a pot hole in st albert and it tore open his gas tank... he called the city and told them to call his insurance,,, he called his insurance the next day and when the rep from the insurance company came out to the spot, the city workers had already put out signs warning of bad road
case lost
looks like the city will do whatever it takes to get out of it |
|
|
| e46 |
| and whenever i see city workers, theres 2 that work and 4 that watch.... wtf is with that? |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverNeonRacer
There was a story in either the Sun or the Journal recently... they had a pic of a cabbie pointing out some damage to his car ont he front page... and they even said how much the city paid out last year on damage claims to cars.
It was the Sun, however they don't post their archives online. Here is what was posted last year in the Sun:
Over the past two months the city has received 62 claims from motorists seeking compensation because of run-ins with the road craters. In comparison, over 12 months last year there were 114 claims filed. Of those 114, only 25 have been settled, costing the city $7,855. That's an average of $314 per claim.
It's safe to say that only a small portion of those that complain will actually receive compensation. |
|
|
| GOT BOOST |
quote:
Originally posted by e46
ok so one of my friends hit a pot hole in st albert and it tore open his gas tank... he called the city and told them to call his insurance,,, he called his insurance the next day and when the rep from the insurance company came out to the spot, the city workers had already put out signs warning of bad road
case lost
looks like the city will do whatever it takes to get out of it
ZING!!!!
That is my entire argument. Document, record, photograph everything immediately after the incident. Even if it takes 2 extra hours out of your day. :D
Mike |
|
|
| AuZZZie |
Personally I think if a major city like Edmonton (can you really call it a MAJOR city?) lets public road ways get to the state that Edmonton's are in it's noone fault but theres. It's not tax payers problem.
We've been paying. Why haven't you been fixing? It's all good to blame the weather too. But look around the world or even in Alberta (aka Calgary) and other city's manage to keep their roadways in good working order. Thats just a cop out people like to use here for lack of for sight and years of neglect.
Personally I think they neglected them for too long to ever get them back to quality.
I've NEVER seen a "major" city with such relaxed laws on truck routes either. Fuck there allowed pretty much anywhere.
And how man years have they known the effects of the cold on the roads? Why are the roads not concrete to deal with the climate. Again, more great for sight.
Personally I think vehicles should be tax free here. How can you tax me on a purchase that I can't drive safely without damaging it? (Yes i know GST is federal).
The way this city is run really boils my blood.
Rant over. |
|
|
| Prudz_lude |
quote:
Originally posted by AuZZZie
Personally I think if a major city like Edmonton (can you really call it a MAJOR city?) lets public road ways get to the state that Edmonton's are in it's noone fault but theres. It's not tax payers problem.
We've been paying. Why haven't you been fixing? It's all good to blame the weather too. But look around the world or even in Alberta (aka Calgary) and other city's manage to keep their roadways in good working order. Thats just a cop out people like to use here for lack of for sight and years of neglect.
Personally I think they neglected them for too long to ever get them back to quality.
I've NEVER seen a "major" city with such relaxed laws on truck routes either. Fuck there allowed pretty much anywhere.
And how man years have they known the effects of the cold on the roads? Why are the roads not concrete to deal with the climate. Again, more great for sight.
Personally I think vehicles should be tax free here. How can you tax me on a purchase that I can't drive safely without damaging it? (Yes i know GST is federal).
The way this city is run really boils my blood.
Rant over.
i agree with pretty much everything there. you summed it up nicely. Especially the truck routes. They completely destroyed whyte ave. That ave has such deep grooves it is not even funny. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by Prudz_lude
i agree with pretty much everything there. you summed it up nicely. Especially the truck routes. They completely destroyed whyte ave. That ave has such deep grooves it is not even funny.
Meh! I have no need to worry I got skid plates on my big 4x4 I should be good... kinda sad though....
i can't remember where but i've bottomed out before being in the "grooves" while driving my fifth ave with slightly higher than factory suspension... |
|
|
|
