Slates damaged my car

regedit

Back in September, my car was damaged during a windy day in Clonskeagh where I work. The car was parked outside he office and slates got detached from the roof to land on my car? The A pillar, he door and the boot hat h got damaged. I informed the security gard in situ on damage Nd took pics when I got home. I approched the owner of the bulding (our company has. Lease with them) and hey referred he matter to their solicitor who after 3-4 months is claiming no negligence in their part. I asked them would they stick to that position if someone was seriously injured or killed by flying debris from their building but hey declined to comment (allianz). My insurere (RSA) said hat they would pay for the damage (damage is quotrd at 700 euro and car is fully comprehensive) but that his would affect my NC discount. Should I go the route of small claims court? Any advice appreciated. The car was parked as far away as possile from the building on that day and builders were seen a few days later repairing the roof?

mkie

in my opinion, and i can only speculate, but if you have evidence that it was done by said building then you should go and talk to a solicitor! should be a few yo yos in your back pocked!

Procrastastudy

I'm no expert in legal matters but my experiance of the small claims is that a lot of businesses ignore the summons. I worked for a couple of large retailers before going back to college and they got caught out a few times. With the cost of small claims being so low its worth filling in the paper work and seeing if they pay just to get rid of you or indeed see that you are serious in progressing the claim.

I have no idea if they'd be able to counter claim for any expenses they incur for defending the claim however so hopefully someone else could answer that one.

regedit

That's the only building in the vicinity of my car and the fact that after he said day, they had a crew with a crane doing work on the roof, speaks for itself. When Allianz legal expert emaled to say that they would not pay, I told him that I wold see them in cour and that I would seek compensation for resraying the car. Prior tobthis my car (2010), had no scratches and now looks nsightly so I want it back to its original state

not even wrong

Exactly what negligence are you alleging on their part? Was the roof left unrepaired or in an unsafe condition before the incident happened?

Just because the slates were blown from their roof does not automatically make them liable, extreme weather conditions can damage even well-maintained buildings.

Procrastastudy

Just out of curiosity assuming it is not negligence and the OP statements

(i) it was a windy day
(ii) they had someone up there the very next day (could be seen to be good maitenance)

could he have any other claim?

coylemj

not even wrong wrote: »

Just because the slates were blown from their roof does not automatically make them liable, extreme weather conditions can damage even well-maintained buildings.

If the roof was kept at a reasonable level of repair, would flying slates constitute an Act of God for which the building owner would not be liable?

regedit

not even wrong wrote: »

Exactly what negligence are you alleging on their part? Was the roof left unrepaired or in an unsafe condition before the incident happened?

Just because the slates were blown from their roof does not automatically make them liable, extreme weather conditions can damage even well-maintained buildings.

I will be alleging lack of proper maintenance. I will ask to see if hey have any records indicating that they did any maintenance to the roof in the past. While the day was quite windy, we had a few windier days during which slates did not move.
Also, I think buildings should be constructed and maintained to be safe and not a lethal danger for its tenants.

Procrastastudy

Would they be in a position to have to give that information? I assume they would as it's a scenario that it's obvious what happened - but I'd be interested to find out what others thought.

Victor

regedit wrote: »

I will be alleging lack of proper maintenance. I will ask to see if hey have any records ndivatin that they did any maintenance to the roof in the past. While the day was quite windy, we had a few windier days during which e slates did not move.
Also, I think buildings should be constructed and maintained to be safe and not a lethal danges for its tenants.

What is the lease between landlord and tenant. It may be fully repairing and insuring and you are chasing the wrong party.

triple-M

I dont mean to sound smart OP but I think some of the letters on your keyboard may be a bit stiff. Some of your words are missing letters which makes them a bit more difficult to read

regedit

triple-M wrote: »

I dont mean to sound smart OP but I think some of the letters on your keyboard may be a bit stiff. Some of your words are missing letters which makes them a bit more difficult to read

Sorry. Getting used to typing on iPad.

bath handle

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Just out of curiosity assuming it is not negligence and the OP statements

(i) it was a windy day
(ii) they had someone up there the very next day (could be seen to be good maitenance)

could he have any other claim?

Having someone up the next day is evidence of prompt repair, not of good maintenance. Studying for an exam after it is over does not indicate good preparation or improve your marks.

Procrastastudy

Yes - but given they were up there the very next day may indicate that they do keep the place well maintained. If the OP wants the records he's likely going to have to do so though a solicitor (not for sure but likely) costing him money. If the place was left to fall to bits then I'm sure a different assumption would be made.

The fact remains he's unlikely to be able to claim negligence against the landlord as there is no fault here - or at least he is going to have a very hard job proving fault. I was pondering if there were some other course of action could take. I'm sure this is total pie in the sky but maybe trespass?

EDIT: It does if feeling like you probably failed said exam gave you the wake up call you needed for subsequent exams and resits! :P

Paulw

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I'm sure this is total pie in the sky but maybe trespass?

Who committed the trespass? The slates on the car????? Can you bring action against an inanimate object now? :eek:

seamus

bath handle wrote: »

Having someone up the next day is evidence of prompt repair, not of good maintenance.

Though it does indicate that repairs are made when required.

It would not be negligence if the slates were loose through normal wear and tear, it's only negligence if they were previously poorly repaired or were not repaired despite the danger having been brought to their attention. It's much like nonfeasance -v- misfeasance, though no real contract exists here.

Procrastastudy

Paulw wrote: »

Who committed the trespass? The slates on the car????? Can you bring action against an inanimate object now? :eek:

Nah I knew it was stupid when I posted it I was just trying to highlight the question of could you go down another route. There probably isn't one but was just curious - I don't want to be hijacking the thread but anything that would answer me in a way that might give OP something to go on as the negligence aspect seems like a dead end. Thats a dead end in my amazing legal experience spanning all of 15 weeks of course.

regedit

Imagine the other scenario. If say for the sake of an argument a slate flew of the roof and decapitated or seriously injured a person, would the owner of the building maintain the same position? (I know you probably do not know the answer but I am speculating).

Procrastastudy

There was a case where a bus went crashing into people and due to the bus driver blacking out there was no fault found. Lemme go have a look for it...

Here we go

Counihan v Dublin Bus and Ebbs [2005] IEHC 51 - (http://www.bailii.org if you want to have a read)

The driver was found not at fault due to not knowing about the condition. What's interesting about this case is it was noted obiter (Judge's waffle) that had the driver known then he would have had a duty of care. There is a parrell here in that if you could prove the land lord knew tiles where likely to be blown off they would have likely had a duty of care - but that's where you were going in the first place.

As I say, this is coming from some one with 15 weeks of lectures I wasn't paying a huge amount of attention to!

blueythebear

regedit wrote: »

Imagine the other scenario. If say for the sake of an argument a slate flew of the roof and decapitated or seriously injured a person, would the owner of the building maintain the same position? (I know you probably do not know the answer but I am speculating).

It's the same principle. If the slates came off the roof and caused damage be it a personal injury or damage to property, there is still the question of whether there was negligence. Unless, there had been slates coming off the roof in the past or else the roof was left in such a state of disrepair that it was likely that slates would come off, then there is not much hope for any potential proceedings although the correct person to answer this question is a solicitor with all of the facts before him/her.

Procrastastudy

Maybe worth a read for the OP:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=76747048#post76747048