Bad Saturday Night

And when you make such a claim, thereby allowing your insurer to try to subrogate against the city to recover their payment to you, you risk two things:

1. Your insurer gets to decide when to give up against the city. Meaning they may collect less from the city than you might have, since you're understandably more stubborn and offended by the city's negligence. So you might recover just some of your deductible. OK, that's not so bad...

2. But if your insurer collects less than a certain percentage of the loss,(ask an agent) maybe less than 60% from the city, then, based on the notion of contributory negligence, you may learn that your insurer will surcharge you some 30% or so for the next three years, for what your insurer deems your at-fault accident. Wouldn't that be fun?

You see, the insurance company acts in its own best interest, not yours. So while they may cheerfully pay your collision claim, you may not be cheered by what happens after that.

It's not always smart to make a claim. Sometimes it's better to go after the other guy. If you're not satisfied with what the city offers, talk to your agent about all the possible ramifications of making a claim through your insurer. YMMV; be careful.

Finally, all this may be moot if your insurance policy requires you to report to them any accident that involves physical injury to a person. Your insurer has the right to be informed by you of any injuries sustained by anyone in or hit by, etc. your car. Because they have a right to promptly investigate any such injuries. Be very careful about shrugging anything off any contractual duties you may have regarding this. Otherwise it may swing around and bite you in the ass.

Ask your agent if your insurer would be cool with letting you have the first crack at recovering your losses from the city related to damage to your auto, while you promptly report the injuries if you must.

 

he measured it, 5.5 inches. thats awfully high to be sticking out of the road, what if someone drove over that,blew a tire and got killed driving into a tree? it would probably knock the wheel off. we had one here, city took off a sewer grate on the edge of the road, no marking,nothing,car drove into it at night and totaled the car ,the city tried to blame the driver,even though it was clearly their fault, the person driving got a good lawyer and sued the crap out of them and won.

 

I have seldom filed any kind of claim against my insurance company(s), but there are circumstances when it makes sense to do so.

In this instance there was injury, yea at this point it seems RELATIVLY minor, but there isa chance that these injuries may be worse than they now seem.

Also,, while it is a point that the insurance company may not act in your best interest and concede that the accident happend because the car was too low, there is also a chance that the city may find that the car is too low anyway, and since the impact broke the brand new sewer pipe, the city and the contractor will need to recover tens of thousands of dollars removing the old and installing a new pipe, man hole, etc... not to mention that you delayed the project a few weeks, this costs money....

Yea that is pretty much the worst case, but IMO insurance is made for "worst case"...

 

Let me ask you something. Did the cop ask you if you were wearing seat belts? We all know the answer. That is in his report, and I am really surprised you didn't get cited for not wearing them. Now when this goes in front of an arbitrator (if it makes it this far) that will be the one thing he focuses on. And yes I do speak from experience. If you are going after the city, township etc it would be wise not to try and collect for your injuries.

 

A key point to keep in mind this accident was not caused by your car being lowered a little (and not as low as some factory heights). It was caused by whomever that was doing the construction leaving an unmarked hazzard. It is that simple.

At he first hint of a runaround get a lawyer that is not connected in any way to the city. I'd bet there is an unofficial good ole boy network in Indy too.

Bob

 

Your not required to wear them unless the car is or was originally equipped with them. But thats a secondary point anyway.

 

Does any state law require a car that was not fitted with seat belts to be retrofiited? I know I would just for my own safety but is it a legal requirement?

Bob

 

Its a 1953, seat belts came out standard in what 1963? Not required, but, advised to have them in earlier years.

 

As a general rule, no. NJ doesn't, DE doesn't, I'm pretty sure NY and PA don't either. I'm pretty sure PA even repealed it's fender law

 

Your dad could sue you. He got injured in your car, He could sue your insurance company or the city.Sounds like two cases to me.Im not a lawyer but a driver is responsible for his passengers. Good luck'maybe you could both walk away with a new car.Two brand new 54's

 

No.

 

I don't think he wants that, the city leaves a huge chunk of metal sticking way up out of the road in the dark, i think all he wants to to get it fixed and make sure his dad is ok.

 

I stand corrected then. I wouldn't want to test the Ohio Gestapo about that issue though.

 

This could open a can of worms for the inspector. If he's at fault, lets hope he gets burned too.

Take as many photos as you can. I say go for it and get what's due to you.

 

I had a 4 door 53 and 4 inches would clear just about anything on a level road. A stock 4rth gen Camaro would hit that crap in the middle of the road. Sorry to hear about this and hope your dad is alright.

 

Exactly, I am not looking for a handout, that is the least of my worries. I just want my dad taken care of and my car fixed not on my dime or my time. I also want to make sure that this doesnt happen to anyone else. Especially someone driving a nicer car than I have, or kids in the car.

 

If you have to go to court it could help to get some clearance specs from "normal, stock" automobiles.


Helps if they're a few years old and the springs have settled in.

As a small example my 72 Pinto measured at 6" pan clearance and the outer end of the A-arms were lower.
Measurements taken 1985 fwiw.

Might take a look at some of the modern sporty cars, they look to be about 5" off the ground and probably lower in some cases.

 

But,in the case of something of this nature,the city can be held accountable for city employees not properly marking a road hazard that could cause damages.From what I understand (I have friends that do road construction and work for CalTrans),the city employees are responsible for such problems,and must take in to consideration what could happen around the site they are working at.I say get a lawyer,especially if the car was certified for the road at current ride height.The city is responsible for maintaining roads and road construction sites.

 

Why the hell does everyone think this car is "certified"

There is no inspection in his area other than VIN verification if you buy from out of state.

No annual sticker. No kind of certification at all. It's the automotive wild west.

Some lady at the DMV had to look out the window and see an old car in the lot before handing him historic tags. That's the inspection/certification

You guys want your tax dollars to pay for potholes bending gold plated 24" rims????? Those guys are choosing to modify their cars that way, no different than lowering an old chivvy.

 

Man, this guy is a total douche bag. I have considered your points valid until now. I accept responsibilty for not having seat belts in my car. I feel horrible for what my dad had to go through knowing that it might have been avoided if I would have installed 3 point seat belts in my chevy. However, you have not seen the road. I was very aware that there was a manhole there because I was paying attention. That being said, it is a normal thought pattern to assume that you can drive over a manhole cover. I have never had a problem with my car being too low. I am well within the confines of "grown-up" thought to assume the city should be responsible for my damages. No one should have to dodge 5 1/2" tall man hole covers after turning from a main road. You are out of line and I hope you get some satisfaction from using the internet as a means to compensate for you "real life" lack of manhood. Find something better to do than flame a forum where you are pretty much the only person with a problem.

Thanks,
Jared

 

I am a douche bag

A grown up douche bag with a well developed sense of personal responsibility. You probably don't understand, and that's okay. Maybe you will someday. Until then, society will just keep piling rules and laws upon us to deal with those who don't accept their own role in mishaps.

Should they ever implement a vehicle inspection program, realize that you placed one block into the foundation of the program. A beach is made of individual grains of sand.......

 

To get historic plates a State policeman came to my house and inspected the car. He walked around it, looked underneath it, checked the brakes, turn signals, etc. He did not see a problem with the ride height. In Indiana there is no criteria for this inspection. However, I do want to shed light on the fact that someone other than myself, checked it out, and made no comment on the state of the vehicles suspension. The car is not that low. I was more concerned with the ride quality than the appearance. It is not lower than a wide list of factory cars.