I had an incident a while back on a car lot. Basically, damage was caused to a vehicle (for sale) on a car lot by my vehicle. The cause was an improperly maintained/marked off area of black ice. When the damage occurred, the staff said themselves that this was the third time this happened in the same spot within 2 days. My vehicle was not moving forward or backward by my power, it was sliding sideways down a very slight hill. Did they have some sort of responsibility to mark the area off, due to their knowledge of the danger?

I was there due to a current advertisement in the newspaper, inviting the public on their property even more than usual. I would never have been there otherwise.

I have been getting phone calls and letters in the mail from an insurance company demanding payment for the (full) damage. So far, I have not responded or given any info or statement. I have not received an itemized bill, just a total for the complete damage, which is around $1500.

What should I do? I have been smart so far as to not admit anything, and to keep all corespondance. I even have the original newspaper with the ad in it. I anticipate this going to court eventually. The ins. Company has threatened to try to have my license suspended (which I believe is a scare tactic, and didn't fall for), as the police had responded to the accident and that matter is closed, right?

At this point, I don't know if I am responsible for anything at all, given the circumstances. I have read that as far as ins. Co's are concerned, parking lot accidents are usually looked at as 50/50 regardless of fault. In this case, I feel the lot was at fault, for knowing the hazard and not doing anything about it, and extending extra invitation upon the public on top of that. I have read a bit about "invitees" on private property, etc, and the law is there to protect the invitee. Are they in any way responsible for the damage to my vehicle?

Just want a bit of advice, and what I might expect. It's been about 4 months. wondering when to expect the lawsuit papers, and what to include in my answer when the time comes.

1. If you are found responsible in civil court for the accident and don't pay it, yes they can file to have your drivers license suspended till you pay for the damages,

2. While the people who own the property may have had a moral responsibility to mark this area, I do not believe they have a legal responsibility because the driver of each vechile is responsible

3. ** you merely turn it over to your insurance company and let them settle or pay.

If you let it go to lawyers and courts that 1500 will turn into 3000 or 4000 and you will have to pay it.

4. I love the part "caused by my vechile" sort of like the car was driving itself with no one driving it.

** either let your insurance pay it, or write them a check, you did it, and you need to pay them. If you then feel the parking lot was partly to blame, you can sue them for a percentage of it yourself

It was a car dealership not a regular parking lot, and the car that was hit was one of their cars for sale (parked). The reason I think they have at least some responsibility is that, as I said, the staff of the dealership at the time of the incident said this was the third time in the same spot (an exit/entrance to the lot) in 2 days. There are other exits and entrances, why they left this one open if there's others that were clear, I don't know. Or why they didn't move the cars away from the ice, at least. I tried to look up the law on this, it's not crystal clear. It just mentions "invitees", and that special care needs to be taken by the owner to ensure safety. Nothing specific about car incidents. But had I been walking and slipped and got hurt, they would be responsible, no? This is why I'm confused.



I know they can take my license if I don't pay a legal judgement. They are attempting to scare me by saying if I don't pay them NOW (they most certainly don't have a judgement), they will write a letter to Department of Public Safety recommending my license be taken. They sent me a copy of this letter, I don't know if they actually sent one to the DPS. I thought bill collectors were not allowed to threaten people like this. I know they can "urge" you to pay by telling you the legal things that they can do, but they are not allowed to threaten a person with false punishments/consequences. What are they going to do next, threaten me with debtors prison?

I don't have a problem taking some responsibility, if I must. As of yet, I still don't see how I am 100% at fault here, even 50%. Being a car dealership with full parts department and shop, I'm assuming they fixed the vehicle right there. Assuming this, I'll also assume they didn't actually pay what they are charging me. I don't have to pay the retail cost of the parts and labor if this is the case, correct? Just what they actually paid to restore this vehicle.

My insurance refused to pay it, that's why they're bugging me to pay.

And I say caused by my vehicle because there might as well been no one driving it, it was going completely sideways down a slight hill. Nothing I did caused it to go sideways, it was the ice. I was going along and all of a sudden it was like I was being sucked towards a giant magnet. There was no way visually to tell the ice was there, but the dealership most certainly knew it was there.

Actually, you could be in a worse position. If you are found responsible, it's your duty to make the person you injured whole. And a ding on a brand-new car causes a lot of depreciation. So, technically the lot is out the difference between a new car and probably selling it as used, since who is going to buy the dinged car when they car buy the shiny one next to it? And given that cars depreciate a huge amount in the first year... just think of being asked to pay that instead of just the cost of fixing the car!

Most jurisdictions have some type of occupier's liability act whereby the occupier of a property (be it the owner or a tenant) has a duty of care to ensure that the property is safe for permitted persons to enter onto.

Your case is almost like a classic slip-and-fall whereby the occupier of the property fails to take steps to safeguard the public from a known hazard. What makes your situation all the worse is that the dealership continued to ignore the hazard well after others had similar problems. This is beyond simple negligence as their behaviour demonstrates that they were recklessly indifferent to the hazard posed to the public and their property.

While it is possible that a court might find you contributory negligent to some extent we would say that the car dealership was largely, if not completely, responsible for this accident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonymous1

the staff said themselves that this was the third time this happened in the same spot within 2 days.

---

Hello a:

You've got two problems. I understand that you heard this. Did you get the employee's names and/or their written statements at the time?? I'll bet you did not. You certainly don't think you're going to get something from them NOW that will surly cause them to be fired, do you?? So, even if there was a known ice hazard, you're going to have to prove it, and without these guys, you can't.

Next problem is your insurance company. It doesn't matter if the accident is, or isn't your fault. If you had liability insurance, they should pay. They're not?? What was the reason they gave?? I don't know if ANY reason would be good enough, because this is exactly what you are paying them for - to defend you when you are being sued - PERIOD.

Therefore, there is some unknown information that would be helpful.

Court isn't about fair, it's about winning. Given the above, it doesn't look like you can win. Telling the judge that you weren't in control of your car ISN'T going to help your case either.

excon

Thanks for all the responses. It seems as if it could go either way, huh?

excon, As far as the proof of accidents, I can use police reports, right? Since they called the police for each incident (and for all I know there could be even more than 3), there would be a record. I can obtain these records, can't I? I hope I'm not wrong about that. If so, I'll have to find other ways to prove it. I'll figure something out.

As for the ins company, I don't know exactly why they're not doing anything. The dlrship ins informed me that my ins is not paying, and they want the money from me. I would probably rather just pay them myself if it came down to it anyway, because I don't have any accidents on my record and want to keep it that way, and keep my costs down. Maybe my ins is not willing to pay as much as they want and they are trying to recover more from me.

The money part is not worrying me so much, it's more about principle.

Maybe I should just make them an offer to settle this for 50% or less. Any cautions about this approach?

Hello again, anon:

There are a couple things about your post that are troubling.

The first is your unwillingness to accept responsibility. I know, I know, I've read what you said... And, I'll tell you what, let's say that I think you're right. Let's say that I think you don't have any responsibility for the accident at all. Let's say that you're innocent of everything.

Dude, in fact, it doesn't matter what you or I think. What matters is what the law thinks. And, the law is CLEAR on the matter. It's not up for debate. You came here asking about the law. Well, it's our job to tell you what it is. Get ready, here it is: You're responsible.

The next troubling thing is your indifference regarding why your insurance company won't pay. You say now that you don't want to make a claim (which I don't understand), but you obviously did at one point because you gave them your insurance information. What changed your mind?

Indeed, you're contemplating defending a legal case, yet you're not interested in why the people you hired to defend you, won't do so. Dude, that information is crutial. You apparently think that defending you or paying your claims is optional. You clearly don't understand your relationship with your insurance carrier. Before I proceeded further, I would absolutely make certain I understood it completely. More than likely, the reason they won't pay is because the policy lapsed. If that's so, then I understand it. If not, you cannot just let it stand.

Let me tell you what the law says. By the way, this stuff is in your driver's license manual and you've presumably read it. A driver is responsible for his vehicle. Let's just take the speed limit as an example, and you violated more laws than that. A driver may go no faster than the conditions allow. From a legal perspective, if your car went out of control due to ice (even if you couldn't see it), then you were speeding, i.e. going too fast for the conditions.

Does it matter that lots of other cars did the same thing, in the same place, on the same day?? No! Does it matter that the cops didn't give you a ticket? Yes. Does it matter enough to win your lawsuit? NO! The judge doesn't have to go by what the cops did. He's smarter.

Therefore, from my perspective, if you're sued, you'll lose. If you can get them to settle for 50%, I'd go for it. Any cautions?? Sure. Be prepared for them to reject it.

excon

OK, let me say I totally see what you are saying. I was driving my vehicle and I caused damage. I have no problem taking that responsibility. What I have a problem with is taking 100% responsibility.

Here's my issue: I don't see how the lot had 0 duty under the law to protect people, whether in vehicles or on foot. What if someone had been standing there looking at the car? What if someone slipped on that ice while walking around there? Since the lot had complete knowledge that there was a great hazard that was obviously not easily visible/obvious to anyone traveling through there, I just can't see how they had no duty to protect the customers, both drivers and shoppers on foot. Please convince me how this can be. Tell me when their duty to protect their own property from further damage and to protect customers on the lot kicks in. It does not seem plausible to me that there is no law. It would be like me putting my basketball in the road and then blaming someone driving by for popping it and demanding payment for it. Could I get away with that even once, let alone 3 times? Seems more likely to me that I could be in trouble for leaving the thing there and causing a hazard to others.

Does this clear anything up? I am not asking this question for financial reasons, I could write them a check right now and it's not a huge deal. I don't want this on my ins or my record, period. I am asking this question to find out more about the laws concerning a property owners duties to the invited public.

Here's another thing that really makes me want to know more... had I been standing by the car looking at it (it was for sale, and there was an advertised event going on at the time, so that's a very real possibility) and a driver slid into me and injured or killed me, and it was found out that the lot was well aware of the conditions that facilitated the accident... seriously, you don't think the lot would be responsible legally? That is a major reason why I do think there must be some kind of standard by law here. I can see how the driver could be responsible too, but what I don't see is how the responsibility would lie. That is what I'm trying to figure out. I just need help finding this law. If it says I'm 100% responsible, then fine. I just want to see it. I'm not trying to use the law to get out of this, I simply think it would be terribly ignorant of me to just pay up when it seems so obvious that there's got to be something in place to protect people from this. If not protection in the form of better maintenance, then by the lot minimizing their losses in some way.

Sorry, this is getting waaaay long. Last question, I promise!

PS:excon, out of curiosity what laws did I break? Reckless driving, and..?

"The possessor has a full-fledged duty of reasonable care as to the activities but, as to conditions of the land, has a duty to warn only of hazards that are known to the possessor and that a reasonable person should consider dangerous.140 As to the licensee, the landoccupier has no duty to actually discover latent defects on the land but only to correct or to give warning of those dangers of which he is aware.141 Actual knowledge of the condition by the possessor is required for liability,142 though a reasonableness standard is then applied to determine if the possessor had a duty to realize the danger.143 "

"Willful or wanton" conduct in this context requires the landoccupier to have knowledge that someone is imperiled by his conduct or inaction and then to proceed in the face of such knowledge with reckless disregard of the consequences.100" conduct in this context requires the landoccupier to have knowledge that someone is imperiled by his conduct or inaction and then to proceed in the face of such knowledge with reckless disregard of the consequences.100"As to a licensee, the landoccupier is under a duty to make the premises as safe as it appears, or to disclose any hidden risks that make it more dangerous than it looks.113"As to a licensee, the landoccupier is under a duty to make the premises as safe as it appears, or to disclose any hidden risks that make it more dangerous than it looks.113"These approaches reject the old notion that a social guest takes the premises as he finds it and is entitled to no more care from the landoccupier than a member of the household. Instead, these approaches point out that, by modern social practice, a host often prepares the premises at least as carefully for social guests as for business visitors.166 Certainly a person who is specifically invited to a social occasion may reasonably expect that degree of care"

-Explanations/Observations on occupier liability law in my state

So maybe I'm not crazy?!