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

roughan

Hi i was in town on monday turning onto Grantham street from camden street
took it wide to avoid some kids and drove over the remains of a bollard
took the underneath outta the car (Boxster) cut the petrol line and radiator
have a look street closed off thought car was gonna go up but it didnt
fire brigade and police called ..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

http://62.77.175.1/runtime/Release/Shared/roughan/Pics/IMG_0054.JPG
http://62.77.175.1/runtime/Release/Shared/roughan/Pics/IMG_0055.JPG
http://62.77.175.1/runtime/Release/Shared/roughan/Pics/IMG_0052.JPG

http://62.77.175.1/runtime/Release/Shared/roughan/Pics/DSC01791.JPG
http://62.77.175.1/runtime/Release/Shared/roughan/Pics/DSC01790.JPG
http://62.77.175.1/runtime/Release/Shared/roughan/Pics/DSC01789.JPG


can i claim of the council
within 2 hours it was fixed with a brand new bollard

someone told me i can claim
and someone else told me i cant as they are not liable
about 2k damage to to car

OldmanMondeo

Don't think you have a case. You should have notice the traffic island, no matter how small it is.

neacy69

those pics are loading way too slow you might consider hosting them on imagevenue or something

crosstownk

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

Don't think you have a case. You should have notice the traffic island, no matter how small it is.

That's more or less what I was thinking too - but should there not be a round blue sign with a white arrow like the one in the fourth pic? Maybe the absence of that might be grounds for claim...................?

roughan

They are the before and after pics
before there was no bollard
and they had it fixed 2 hours later
all it was ,was 4 inches of concrete in middle of road unlit etc

seamus

It's a traffic island, and you drove onto it. I doubt they have any liability. There is no requirement to indicate or light up traffic islands.

roughan

the cops agreed with me and told me they will act as witness if required on my behalf has anything like this happened anybody else?

Seth Brundle

roughan wrote: »

the cops agreed with me and told me they will act as witness if required on my behalf has anything like this happened anybody else?

Saying and doing are two different things!
If you took the turn wide, why didn't the kerb not do the same kind of damage as it appears to be the same height?

Those photos remind me of dial-up - thanks for the memory!

mack1

I reckon you do have a case - a guy I used to work with claimed for having the suspension fixed on his car after driving through a bad pothole and the council paid it.

End of the day you pay your road tax and should expect a road that will not cause damage to your car.

seamus

mack1 wrote: »

End of the day you pay your road tax and should expect a road that will not cause damage to your car.

Except that he wasn't on the road. He left the roadway and that's when the damage occured.

ceidefields

See I wrecked the axel of my Passat on a huge pothole and it cost about a grand to fix. Took it up with the council and they told me to feck off.

Not to mention that at the same time my hub cap flew off and bounced off another car that was going in the other direction! luckily nothing damaged on the other car

Golferx

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.

For €2k, you could chance your arm in the Small Claims Court, however, should you win there, the Council has the right to appeal to a higher Court, and that's where Lawyers get involved.

mikemac

seamus wrote: »

Except that he wasn't on the road. He left the roadway and that's when the damage occured.

Yep, you weren't on the road when this happened, you mounted a kerb. The kerb is pretty clear in the pics
I'd say you have no valid claim.

If you want to claim then go ahead but I don't think you'll get anywhere.

And can do something with the photos, it's sloooooow.

FX Meister

Golferx wrote: »

For €2k, you could chance your arm in the Small Claims Court, however, should you win there, the Council has the right to appeal to a higher Court, and that's where Lawyers get involved.

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

Esel

I also think you are sol. You drive onto a traffic island - even without the bollard, you should definitely have seen it if you were paying attention. Swinging wide might have been part of your mistake - better to have waited til the kids cleared the junction.

You could certainly try a claim, nothing to lose. Can't see you being successful though.

Why are those pictures so sloooooooow?

uberwolf

the rapid repair smacks of a policy. It also suggests a suspicion that they were in the wrong.

Was it the kerbing or the stunted bollard that caused the damage?

The bollard is there to guide the motorist around an obstacle.

TychoCaine

I dunno. I think you might have a case. That metal plate on the island you hit looks to me to be the base of a previous bollard. That would imply that we have here is a traffic island that normally has a bollard on it. You could even argue that the existance of a bollard is an admission by the corpo that the island was not visible enough without it. If you follow golferx's reasoning, the corpo's failure to repair the damage within a reasonable time (it'd been in that state for at least a week), was what caused you to not see the island, so they'd be liable for the costs.

Guy:Incognito

uberwolf wrote: »

the rapid repair smacks of a policy. It also suggests a suspicion that they were in the wrong..

Or that they didnt know about the bollard being gone (someone else crashed into the lighted bollard?) so rectified the problem as soon as they found out.

miju

TychoCaine wrote: »

the corpo's failure to repair the damage within a reasonable time (it'd been in that state for at least a week),.

to which the reply would be from any smart lawyer worth his salt. how did you know it's been like that for a week? if you knew it was like that for a week then you knew the obstacle was there

Anan1

miju wrote: »

to which the reply would be from any smart lawyer worth his salt. how did you know it's been like that for a week? if you knew it was like that for a week then you knew the obstacle was there

Read the thread!OP answered this in his first post.

TychoCaine

Anan1 wrote: »

Read the thread!OP answered this in his first post.

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

Mexicola

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Don't think you have a case. You should have notice the traffic island, no matter how small it is.

I agree here. Observation is especially important when driving a low car like that.

By the way is there a reason why you have to mention you have a Porsche/Boxster? The same reasoning would apply to any car... ? :rolleyes: I dont think the council would change their opinion based on how expensive your car is...

deman

So basically, what the OP's saying is that he went off the road, damaged his car, and it's not his fault and wants someone else to pay for the damage?

Anan1

Mexicola wrote: »

I agree here. Observation is especially important when driving a low car like that.

By the way is there a reason why you have to mention you have a Porsche/Boxster? The same reasoning would apply to any car... ? :rolleyes: I dont think the council would change their opinion based on how expensive your car is...

?? A Boxster is lower-slung than the average car.

roughan

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

roughan

deman wrote: »

So basically, what the OP's saying is that he went off the road, damaged his car, and it's not his fault and wants someone else to pay for the damage?

No i did not go off the road
i did damage my car
it is the councils fault
and i do want someone else to pay for this

can everybody get off their high horse about this
i didnt ask for comments about the car
anyway was onto Guards /Insurance company about this and its all looking very positive in my favour

Capt'n Midnight

IIRC if the problem had been reported to the council and they hadn't repaired in resonable time you might have some grounds. If it wasn't reported then I don't think you have a case.

Guy:Incognito

Most people would consider you off the road once you mount a kerb. You drove over a kerb. From the pics it looks fairly obvious that its there tbh.

deman

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?

Wishbone Ash

Stekelly wrote: »

From the pics it looks fairly obvious that its there tbh.

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.


Re using Porsche - it does make opening the thread more appealing compared to " Crashed Fiesta into........"

unkel

roughan wrote: »

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

That's great news! Do us a favour and update your thread as you go along

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