Car damaged while entering a car park of club

raspberrypi67

Hi Folks,
Just wondering if anyone can shed some light, legally that is on where I stand here.
The other night I was driving my son to athletics in Celbridge, I was entering the car park and taking a left . Anyway, I saw a cone to my left, gave it a bit of distance but then heard this ' jaring ' sound more than a cone would make if I'd hit it.
I drove on a bit and stopped to car to see what had happened and to my horror I had hit , what seemed to be, a round concrete pipe about a foot and a half in diameter by about a foot high. The side of my car was all scraped, my door dented in slightly and the back door and some of the chassis scraped also.
Needless to say I was livid and spoke to the people there about it.

The actual cone that was supposed to be marking this heavy object was on the wrong side of it. I gather it was there to mark it. I'll include a photo.

I get the impression now that they feel they are not liable ....

Is this just my own bad luck or should this object have been more clearly marked??

aaakev

Id say they are right, you hit a stationary object on the ground that is marked by a cone. What did your insurance company say?

Triangla

Did you see the pipe when you were driving in?

If not then it was not sufficiently lit.

Cones move, silly thing to mark the object.

CJhaughey

I'd put it down to operator error, thats a pretty big object and it has been marked by the placing of the cone to draw attention to it, I can't see how else it could be marked?
If it was a hole it wouldn't be visible but a concrete pipe that is half the height of the cone is not exactly hidden.
What kind of area is it, a carpark or some kind of waste ground?

pat k

raspberrypi67 wrote:

Hi Folks, Just wondering if anyone can shed some light, legally that is on where I stand here. The other night I was driving my son to athletics in Celbridge, I was entering the car park and taking a left . Anyway, I saw a cone to my left, gave it a bit of distance but then heard this ' jaring ' sound more than a cone would make if I'd hit it. I drove on a bit and stopped to car to see what had happened and to my horror I had hit , what seemed to be, a round concrete pipe about a foot and a half in diameter by about a foot high. The side of my car was all scraped, my door dented in slightly and the back door and some of the chassis scraped also. Needless to say I was livid and spoke to the people there about it.

In the name of GOD how did u manage to hit this ??? , you are the driver and shud take the blame for the damage to your car . what if that was a small child ,etc ??

Jeju

In America new car, loss of earnings sympathic ears, in Ireland stop driving like a lunitic, if that was a kid etc
.

arthur daly

Even if there was no cone of was a pretty big obstacle.I would say if you try follow this in a legal route the only suffering will be on your pockets.

arthur daly

Even if there was no cone of was a pretty big obstacle.I would say if you try follow this in a legal route the only suffering will be on your pockets.

Galadriel

Did you have your car lights on? I know it was dark but you should have been able to see it with your lights.

crazyderk

to be fair to the OP

I was entering the car park and taking a left . Anyway, I saw a cone to my left, gave it a bit of distance

The actual cone that was supposed to be marking this heavy object was on the wrong side of it.

so the OP saw a big cone and was obviously focused on giving it some distance and so didn't see the object which was smaller and on the other side.

I would imagine OP the place probably has some sign saying they are not responsible ETC.

_davidsmith_

Lets not all be mental here, the cone is nothing to do with a big concrete pillar. The cone could have been put there by anyone, or be there to mark something else. As much as you dont want to hear it you hit the pillar all by yourself, the cone didnt crash your car.

Its private property so chance your arm telling them theyre in the wrong but if you were pulling into my driveway and told me a cone made you hit my pillar i know where i would tell you to jump.

Call me Al

Is this a proper parking area or rough ground that is just used for parking.

It doesn't seem to be particularly well lit.

MarkAnthony

pat k wrote: »

In the name of GOD how did u manage to hit this ??? , you are the driver and shud take the blame for the damage to your car . what if that was a small child ,etc ??

Sorry What?
(Sos??? , Wha!!!??)

Were you driving when you wrote that?

Uno my Uno.

pat k wrote: »

In the name of GOD how did u manage to hit this ??? , you are the driver and shud take the blame for the damage to your car . what if that was a small child ,etc ??

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Sorry What?
(Sos??? , Wha!!!??)

Were you driving when you wrote that?

Think of the kids Joe! etc etc etc.

raspberrypi67

crazyderk wrote: »

to be fair to the OP





so the OP saw a big cone and was obviously focused on giving it some distance and so didn't see the object which was smaller and on the other side.

I would imagine OP the place probably has some sign saying they are not responsible ETC.

Yes, thanks for that.

No idea and a bit stunned at the mention of kids. I was doing about 2 feet/second. I had lights on ok but as a person said, I was concentrating on the cone, dident even see the piller. There were no kids in the vicinity, just to make the point. I dont do 30Km/h in car parks the way some nut jobs do.
Anyway, back to the point in question, Insurers wont entertain it, basically my own fault. Life goes on....

paleoperson

pat k wrote: »

In the name of GOD how did u manage to hit this ??? , you are the driver and shud take the blame for the damage to your car . what if that was a small child ,etc ??

imo this is a foolish and trolling post.

A small child isn't going to be in a carpark in the middle of the night curled up in a ball, stationary, wearing the exact same clothes as the surrounding area.

I think the OP has a strong case since the cone was on the wrong side of it.

"a small child".... You know it's a fact that if a small child is in the middle of a parking lot and you're backing, you definitely will not see them and will kill them. Same with if you hit a small inconspicuous rock on the road you didn't see in the dark "oh what if it was a small child on the main road".

If the OP was speeding around I wouldn't have sympathy, but that's apparently not it at all.

Marcusm

raspberrypi67 wrote: »

Hi Folks,
Just wondering if anyone can shed some light, legally that is on where I stand here.
The other night I was driving my son to athletics in Celbridge, I was entering the car park and taking a left . Anyway, I saw a cone to my left, gave it a bit of distance but then heard this ' jaring ' sound more than a cone would make if I'd hit it.
I drove on a bit and stopped to car to see what had happened and to my horror I had hit , what seemed to be, a round concrete pipe about a foot and a half in diameter by about a foot high. The side of my car was all scraped, my door dented in slightly and the back door and some of the chassis scraped also.
Needless to say I was livid and spoke to the people there about it.

The actual cone that was supposed to be marking this heavy object was on the wrong side of it. I gather it was there to mark it. I'll include a photo.

I get the impression now that they feel they are not liable ....

Is this just my own bad luck or should this object have been more clearly marked??

That's about the size of a small child curled up on the ground; was it not visible using your headlights? I'd be surprised if they had any liability for visible hazards.

paleoperson

Marcusm wrote: »

That's about the size of a small child curled up on the ground; was it not visible using your headlights? I'd be surprised if they had any liability for visible hazards.

Small children should not be allowed anywhere near car parks unattended. Just like a main road is no place for a small child.

If you think that's a place for small children then there's something wrong with you.

MarkAnthony

paleoperson wrote: »

Small children should not be allowed anywhere near car parks unattended. Just like a main road is no place for a small child.

If you think that's a place for small children then there's something wrong with you.

This seems like foolish trolling post

Where has there been any suggestion that a car park is a suitable place for a child. The point was merely being made that it was the size of a small child. I'd add to that comment that one should expect the unexpected. If everything was exactly where it should be all of the time there wouldn't be any accidents would there?

Anyway all that aside, pop the kid in the pipe and leave it there while you go for a swift pint, seems perfectly safe and reasonable given how the OPs car fared vs. said pipe. :pac:

Marcusm

paleoperson wrote: »

Small children should not be allowed anywhere near car parks unattended. Just like a main road is no place for a small child.

If you think that's a place for small children then there's something wrong with you.

That's absolutely true; it's not however something I could plead in mitigation if I hit a child lying in the road. Likewise I suspect the OP would find it hard to sustain a claim against a club for hitting a sizeable stationary object when, in any event, he should not drive his car forward unless he can assess what is in his path. It's like claiming mitigation for being distracted by a Wonderbra billboard when driving into the car in front of you.

paleoperson

Nonsense.

There was no reason to bring up small children in this thread except to be dramatic. Now that's the end of it.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

LeinsterDub

raspberrypi67 wrote: »

Yes, thanks for that.

No idea and a bit stunned at the mention of kids. I was doing about 2 feet/second

Or as most like to call it 22 kph

paleoperson

60x60x2 = 7200 feet/hour.

/5280 = 1.363636miles/hour

A long way from 22kph.

LeinsterDub

paleoperson wrote: »

60x60x2 = 7200 feet/hour.

/5280 = 1.363636miles/hour

A long way from 22kph.

I carried a zero. Sorry should of been working. 2.2 kph

OP, A cousin of my was passing through an (active) set of construction works on a roadway. They had a stop/go system in place and in the stop/go gap was the entrance to her work place.

She drove along the road, and had to turn right to enter her workplace. Amidst paying attention to workers wandering around and potential hazards she did exactly what you did, and turned right, and caught the car on a random concrete block that was sitting out in the road.

It was entirely her own fault. She drove straight into it. It never jumped out in front of her and it wasn't hiding behind anything waiting to 'get her'.


Despite this, the construction company paid out immediately for damage to the car, without her having to resort to threatening legal action or such (she simply asked, and they asked her to get a reasonable repair quote. She went to a local panel beater, he quoted it, and she presented it to the Construction Company, who paid her (unsure of method of payment)).


She was just kinda chancing her arm by asking them, as she figured the blame would lie on her, but the fact they agreed to pay out so swiftly would make me think that perhaps they have a bit of history/experience/knowledge of these kinda claims and perhaps there's a precedent of the driver being considered to be not at fault.


So make of that what you will. Anything that doesn't have reflective battenburg, a hi-vis sticker and a flashing amber LED is considered invisible these days so worth a try. Just make sure you've lots of photos, as your current photo, whilst it's good to you, doesn't really paint a picture for anyone who wasn't there. Get wider photos that show the area, lighting, positioning of the cone, etc.

Marcusm

paleoperson wrote: »

Nonsense.

There was no reason to bring up small children in this thread except to be dramatic. Now that's the end of it.

My invocation of the "small child" was without notice that others had made a similar comment; in fact, that is significant. The point is not that one should of shouldn't expect a small child but to point out that the piece of metal/post/pipe was not so significant that hitting it was a surprise. In the OP's position, I might be more worried about the condition of what I had hit through negligence/own volition than to wonder whether I might pass the cost of damage, through my own foolishness/inattention, of my own property to another.

Tl;dr: just because you didn't see it doesn't mean that its owner is responsible for your damage.

Marcusm

Deleted User wrote: »

OP, A cousin of my was passing through an (active) set of construction works on a roadway. They had a stop/go system in place and in the stop/go gap was the entrance to her work place.

She drove along the road, and had to turn right to enter her workplace. Amidst paying attention to workers wandering around and potential hazards she did exactly what you did, and turned right, and caught the car on a random concrete block that was sitting out in the road.

It was entirely her own fault. She drove straight into it. It never jumped out in front of her and it wasn't hiding behind anything waiting to 'get her'.


Despite this, the construction company paid out immediately for damage to the car, without her having to resort to threatening legal action or such (she simply asked, and they asked her to get a reasonable repair quote. She went to a local panel beater, he quoted it, and she presented it to the Construction Company, who paid her (unsure of method of payment)).


She was just kinda chancing her arm by asking them, as she figured the blame would lie on her, but the fact they agreed to pay out so swiftly would make me think that perhaps they have a bit of history/experience/knowledge of these kinda claims and perhaps there's a precedent of the driver being considered to be not at fault.


So make of that what you will. Anything that doesn't have reflective battenburg, a hi-vis sticker and a flashing amber LED is considered invisible these days so worth a try. Just make sure you've lots of photos, as your current photo, whilst it's good to you, doesn't really paint a picture for anyone who wasn't there. Get wider photos that show the area, lighting, positioning of the cone, etc.

In fairness, that was a hazard placed negligently on a public road which is a world apart from the OP's scenario. On the Motors forum, the suggestion of a claim might be identified as exactly the sort of reason why Irish insurance rates are so high.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

In fairness, that was a hazard placed negligently on a public road which is a world apart from the OP's scenario. On the Motors forum, the suggestion of a claim might be identified as exactly the sort of reason why Irish insurance rates are so high.

Depends how you look at it. Both are 'visible hazards' that can be avoided, and would (in my opinion) be a simple matter of driver error.

Had I not known of my Cousin's experience my initial train of thought on this kind of thing would be the driver is negligent and as goes with that, should be paying for any damage done to the object that was hit.


But the experience my cousin had turned that the complete opposite way (the construction company paying out with relative ease).

I'd argue a few blocks or security barriers or traffic cones, etc. are things you've to keep an eye on during a stretch of roadworks, but apparently not.

MarkAnthony

paleoperson wrote: »

Nonsense.

There was no reason to bring up small children in this thread except to be dramatic. Now that's the end of it.

There's a school play on? It was dealt with further up the thread in more a more humourous and light hearted fashion but there we go.

Marcusm

paleoperson wrote: »

Nonsense.

There was no reason to bring up small children in this thread except to be dramatic. Now that's the end of it.

He was bringing his child to an athletics event and was driving into a car park; having brought many small children to such events I would be wary of kids running about but also of some kneeling down tying their laces - a proxy for what the OP hit! It's all about the context but you seem to have missed that. He should worry less about his self inflicted property damage and be thankful it was an inanimate object!

Uno my Uno.

Will somebody please think of the kids joe!

With regard to the poster who's cousin struck a block left in the road there is a big difference in liability terms between leaving an obstruction in the public highway and an obstacle in a private car park. I've if I leave an obstacle n the middle of the road where it is not supposed to be I will be liable for the damage it causes. If however you drive into my private car park it is up to you to negotiate the various hazards such as they may be.

OP I think you are on a sticky wicket here, you were in charge of the vehicle and you hit a stationary object, you should be liable for your own damage. However from a purely discursive point of view the element of the cone and the concept of malfeasance as opposed to nonfeasance may be of Relevance here. By Misplacing the cone the club have committed a positive act which caused the damage to your car. This is a malfeasance, if the reasonably foreseeable consequences of that malfeasance is damage to a car should the club not be liable for it? Ironically if the club had done nothing to warn of the pipe they ought not be liable as that would be a nonfeasance .

Pat Mustard

Mod:

Report posts where necessary but please do not accuse other posters of trolling.

raspberrypi67

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Will somebody please think of the kids joe!

With regard to the poster who's cousin struck a block left in the road there is a big difference in liability terms between leaving an obstruction in the public highway and an obstacle in a private car park. I've if I leave an obstacle n the middle of the road where it is not supposed to be I will be liable for the damage it causes. If however you drive into my private car park it is up to you to negotiate the various hazards such as they may be.

OP I think you are on a sticky wicket here, you were in charge of the vehicle and you hit a stationary object, you should be liable for your own damage. However from a purely discursive point of view the element of the cone and the concept of malfeasance as opposed to nonfeasance may be of Relevance here. By Misplacing the cone the club have committed a positive act which caused the damage to your car. This is a malfeasance, if the reasonably foreseeable consequences of that malfeasance is damage to a car should the club not be liable for it? Ironically if the club had done nothing to warn of the pipe they ought not be liable as that would be a nonfeasance .

Thanks for that , I take your point. However, the fact is they indicated something was there....I'd imagine...
Both brokers on my side and their side have basically that I'm liable.

Small claims court!??

raspberrypi67

Deleted User wrote: »

OP, A cousin of my was passing through an (active) set of construction works on a roadway. They had a stop/go system in place and in the stop/go gap was the entrance to her work place.

She drove along the road, and had to turn right to enter her workplace. Amidst paying attention to workers wandering around and potential hazards she did exactly what you did, and turned right, and caught the car on a random concrete block that was sitting out in the road.

It was entirely her own fault. She drove straight into it. It never jumped out in front of her and it wasn't hiding behind anything waiting to 'get her'.


Despite this, the construction company paid out immediately for damage to the car, without her having to resort to threatening legal action or such (she simply asked, and they asked her to get a reasonable repair quote. She went to a local panel beater, he quoted it, and she presented it to the Construction Company, who paid her (unsure of method of payment)).


She was just kinda chancing her arm by asking them, as she figured the blame would lie on her, but the fact they agreed to pay out so swiftly would make me think that perhaps they have a bit of history/experience/knowledge of these kinda claims and perhaps there's a precedent of the driver being considered to be not at fault.


So make of that what you will. Anything that doesn't have reflective battenburg, a hi-vis sticker and a flashing amber LED is considered invisible these days so worth a try. Just make sure you've lots of photos, as your current photo, whilst it's good to you, doesn't really paint a picture for anyone who wasn't there. Get wider photos that show the area, lighting, positioning of the cone, etc.

Thanks for that, it was interesting ok and see your point ok. I may just go and have a chat. I'll have to go back and take another proper look at the area where it happened as the entrance is on a funny incline going in, and while your looking out for cars etc, and children, its hard to take any notice of a cone. And the fact that I did give what I imagined was enough room, I still hit the pipe/piller or whatever you'd call it.

paleoperson

Marcusm wrote: »

He was bringing his child to an athletics event and was driving into a car park; having brought many small children to such events I would be wary of kids running about but also of some kneeling down tying their laces - a proxy for what the OP hit! It's all about the context but you seem to have missed that. He should worry less about his self inflicted property damage and be thankful it was an inanimate object!

I know 10 year olds are small, but I'm pretty sure they're bigger than 1 foot tall and in diameter, even bending down to tie their shoelaces in the middle of the parking lot camouflaged to match the surroundings.

Anyway it looks more like a place you're meant to drive through, not the spaces itself. So it's more like a road. The fact that there's a bollard there make it worse, because you think once you're inside the bollard you're doing fine. A bollard is supposed to mark the edge.

Uno my Uno.

raspberrypi67 wrote: »

Thanks for that, it was interesting ok and see your point ok. I may just go and have a chat. I'll have to go back and take another proper look at the area where it happened as the entrance is on a funny incline going in, and while your looking out for cars etc, and children, its hard to take any notice of a cone. And the fact that I did give what I imagined was enough room, I still hit the pipe/piller or whatever you'd call it.

The small claims court is for consumer matters only, not negligence actions.

the legal costs involved in bringing such a matter to the District Court would probably be prohibitive.

raspberrypi67

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

The small claims court is for consumer matters only, not negligence actions.

the legal costs involved in bringing such a matter to the District Court would probably be prohibitive.

O, ok. Now that I think about it , you're right.

raspberrypi67

Hi Folks,


I'm still on this case.
Someone tell me what the story is here as it seems to me that the club keep hedging and dragging their heals about
giving me the name of their insurers. I even talked to the guy yesterday when I dropped my son there and had a frank
discussion about it and he said 'he couldn't remember' ,yet he runs the club! The other women will not answer my tests about this
information either.
Its a bit odd and I'm more worried that they ARE actually insured, in terms of injury....

Anyone know how I can wangle this information from them?

ohnonotgmail

you really need to talk to a solicitor. you hit a stationary object. i really cant see you getting much joy out of this.

paleoperson

raspberrypi67 I'm really unimpressed at the emotive, dramatic, sarcastic and ridiculous impromptu joking going on here, I suggest that you pay no attention to what anyone here says regarding your legal standing or best course of action.

Pat Mustard

paleoperson wrote: »

raspberrypi67 I'm really unimpressed at the emotive, dramatic, sarcastic and ridiculous impromptu joking going on here, I suggest that you pay no attention to what anyone here says regarding your legal standing or best course of action.

Mod:

Please don't post in this thread again.

You may consider this to be a warning in relation to your trolling and uncivil posting.

edanto

raspberrypi67 wrote: »

Hi Folks,


I'm still on this case.
Someone tell me what the story is here as it seems to me that the club keep hedging and dragging their heals about
giving me the name of their insurers. I even talked to the guy yesterday when I dropped my son there and had a frank
discussion about it and he said 'he couldn't remember' ,yet he runs the club! The other women will not answer my tests about this
information either.
Its a bit odd and I'm more worried that they ARE actually insured, in terms of injury....

Anyone know how I can wangle this information from them?

Would you not just chalk it up to experience?

It really is your fault that you hit it, no matter what way you look at it. It's a large stationary object clearly marked by a cone.

Your 'adversary' in court would be a voluntary organisation that is currently providing an enjoyable outlet for your child. Why would you want to force that organisation to go through a claim, and incur legal costs which may further delay the slow building work that is clearly taking place.

When you lose the claim in court, as would be my predication based on ZERO legal knowledge, the club will be able to get their costs back from you, but at that point their cash flow will have been stretched and who knows how it will have affected your standing in the club, and that of your son.

There's a lot at stake here. You have a chance to teach your son about responsibility, you can make some amends at the club, and maybe even buy some spare cones to help mark out the pipe better; they'll probably get used in training afterwards.

You are 100% on the wrong track here. Stop, change direction, and sort this out.

Peppa Pig

edanto wrote: »

It really is your fault that you hit it, no matter what way you look at it. It's a large stationary object clearly marked by a cone.

That would have been my initial thoughts.

Then out of nosiness, when I was around at the school I drove into the athletics club.
It's a steep slope into in, the pipe is only partially visible - the cone is on the correct side now. I saw it in daylight, not sure what it would be like at night but my thoughts were "what the hell is a concrete pipe doing there".
It's still there, so the club, other than moving the cone are doing feck all to prevent a recurrence.

If it was me I be pretty hacked off and can see where the op is coming from. Then again proving negligence is another matter.

ohnonotgmail

Peppa Pig wrote: »

That would have been my initial thoughts.

Then out of nosiness, when I was around at the school I drove into the athletics club.
It's a steep slope into in, the pipe is only partially visible - the cone is on the correct side now. I saw it in daylight, not sure what it would be like at night but my thoughts were "what the hell is a concrete pipe doing there".
It's still there, so the club, other than moving the cone are doing feck all to prevent a recurrence.

If it was me I be pretty hacked off and can see where the op is coming from. Then again proving negligence is another matter.

so if you can see it in daylight the OP should have seen it if they had their lights on.

Peppa Pig

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so if you can see it in daylight the OP should have seen it if they had their lights on.

I'm actually not sure - it's a dark grey pipe sitting on dark gravel, especially with the cone not properly marking it.

I'm not going down in the dark to see how visible it is, just in case .:)

Gerry T

Did you drive towards and then scrape the side of your car along the concrete? How long of a scrape / dent is there along the side of the car?

raspberrypi67

Peppa Pig wrote: »

That would have been my initial thoughts.

Then out of nosiness, when I was around at the school I drove into the athletics club.
It's a steep slope into in, the pipe is only partially visible - the cone is on the correct side now. I saw it in daylight, not sure what it would be like at night but my thoughts were "what the hell is a concrete pipe doing there".
It's still there, so the club, other than moving the cone are doing feck all to prevent a recurrence.

If it was me I be pretty hacked off and can see where the op is coming from. Then again proving negligence is another matter.

Thanks, exactly my feeling in a nutshell.

Anyway, I've decided theres no way I can get around this.
I've gone down the road of just getting the job on my car privately . Lighting in place or entrance at night is not great but how do you prove all this.
Anyway, I'll let go.....

Thanks folks for the info and help etc..

Down to experience...!!!

edanto

Fair play to ya and thanks for updating the thread with your decision.

You might want to let the chairman (the club person you asked about Insurance) know what you've decided, since I'm sure they are privately a bit worried about it.

Pat Mustard

raspberrypi67 wrote: »

Lighting in place or entrance at night is not great but how do you prove all this.

You get a solicitor to recommend a litigation engineer, who goes out to the location of the accident by day and by night and takes photographs which he can hand up to a judge, if necessary.

NUTLEY BOY

Just a view.

On the evidence, the pipe was a hazard the presence of which was not obvious to a driver, at night, exercising reasonable care. It seems that the occupiers of the car park did not deal adequately or reaonably with the hazard. Sticking a cone in the general area of the hazard and hoping that it never moves does not discharge the duty of care.

The Small claims Court would not have jurisdiction over this. i.e. not a consumer contract issue.

If the OP had the damage dealt with under her motor insurance policy the insurers might then have followed up with the car park owners / occupiers. That said, a no claims discount is valuable these days !

Were I in the OP's position I would press this a little more firmly and not let it go just yet despite what "brokers say"! That is just personal prejudice as I believe nothing that insurance brokers say

I suppose that there was a disclaimer of liability notice stuck somewhere behind a hedge anyway :mad:

BTW I take it that the OP is not a member of the club and that it is unincorporated and that the club does not own the car park. Otherwise, you might be in the club member suing a club scenario i.e you cannot win.

Otherwise, a most unfortunate experience which could have been worse.