Car dented - whose fault? « Singletrack Forum

Chat Forum

[closed]

Car dented - whose fault?

35 posts & 14 voices | Started 2 years ago by bowglie | Latest reply from Speshpaul

Tags:

No tags yet.

bowglie - Member

Currently having lots of building work done on house & last night a piece of wood (not) securing a tarpaulin blew off the roof and hit my car, leaving a small dent in the boot lid.

If it'd been my old van, I wouldn't have been bothered at all, but it's my sunny weekends rag-top sportscar, that normally lives in the garage - when garage isn't full of building materials.

I think the damage can be sorted by a mobile dent repair guy for about £70-£90. But my dilemma is do I ask the builder/roofer to pay, or accept that I was a bit of a pillock for parked half-way under scaffolding on a windy night. At first I was 'right, he's gonna pay' etc etc., but when I mentioned it to the roofer (who I know the builder only pays £180 a week), he was mortified & dead apologetic.

The roofer's made a good job of things so far, and I know he's got a young family, so I'd feel a right barsteward asking for the money.

But, what do ya reckon - make 'em pay, or put it down to experience and pay for it myself?

Posted 2 years ago #
BigJohn - Member

I would compromise and ask him to thatch your bootlid at the weekend.

I don't really think its fair to make him pay for an unexpected consequence of a quite innocent mistake, even if by law he's probably at fault. And i guess by your post you don't either.

Actually, if its your property, aren't you liable?

Posted 2 years ago #
davidtaylforth - Member

Pay for it yourself if its only £90. Sounds like you have a fair bit of cash and sounds like he'd miss £90 more than you would

Posted 2 years ago #
bowglie - Member

I would compromise and ask him to thatch your bootlid at the weekend.
Hmm..there's an idea - although I'm not a fan of thatches, much prefer things smooth and thatch free...ahem..talkin' roofing of course

Posted 2 years ago #
coffeeking - Member

Not sure how you can deduce the cashflow characteristics of a poster and his roofer by analysing a post about his dented car.

But I'd say suck it up, if its that precious to you (and mine is) you'd have made damn sure it was nowhere near the possibility of falling items. I've just trailered my baby 200 miles as its safe resting place is having some building work done.

Posted 2 years ago #
stumpy01 - Member

I'd have said split the cost.

Your fault for parking in proximity, but his fault for leaving some wood in a position where it can blow off a roof.
Bit of a silly thing to do - lucky it didn't fall off & hit a passer by.

Posted 2 years ago #
nbt - Member

Not sure how you can deduce the cashflow characteristics of a poster and his roofer by analysing a post about his dented car.

well this kind of gives at least some of it away

I mentioned it to the roofer (who I know the builder only pays £180 a week)

Posted 2 years ago #
chunky_pott - Member

As does the fact he has a "sunny weekends rag-top sportscar".

I'd put it down to experience and pay for it myself.

Actually looking at my car outside I'd just leave it with a dent in it.

Posted 2 years ago #
TheLittlestHobo - Member

Can the roofer do you a couple of little extras to cover your costs? Is there any jobs you need doing that he can possibly do whilst he's up there that would be a bonus if they were done?

Thats usually the way i sort things. Accidents happen so it leaves good karma rather than straight out asking for money. Dont ask him for a blow job though, thats a bit over the top

Posted 2 years ago #
bowglie - Member

Dont ask him for a blow job though, thats a bit over the top
LOL...d'you reckon?!

Cheers for the advice, er...and some of the entertaining views - wow, I never knew I was that rich - oh, hang on I must be because I've got a cheapo convertible sports car...silly me

Posted 2 years ago #
stonemonkey - Member

I think the law would be on your side, tort of negligence and all that but if it were me i'd mention it to the builder so firstlty it doesnt happen again, see what he says and come to an agreement ie money off your job, some/all payment for your damage just dont go in ranting and raving otherwise you have a leak in yor roof in the future.

Posted 2 years ago #
coffeeking - Member

well this kind of gives at least some of it away
I mentioned it to the roofer (who I know the builder only pays £180 a week)

Not if the roofer works on other roof jobs in the spare minutes, it's not unusual for a roofer to dart between 2 or 3 jobs a day, while working "for" someone else on one of them. Sure it's possible its his only job, but we are far from knowing that.

As does the fact he has a "sunny weekends rag-top sportscar".

Again, possible but far from a "known", not at all - one man may consider a £1000 sports car that he insures and uses very occasionally while commuting by bike as his sole fun, whereas the guy next door may own a boring 500 quid car and spend his cash down the pub. Neither are "rich", it's just how you choose to spend your cash. It's remarkable how people jump to conclusions on here, it still surprises me after years!

Posted 2 years ago #
kenneththecurtain - Member

Surely regardless of who is at fault, if you ask him for money he'll only add it to your bill anyway. He also might think (wrongly or not) you're a tosser and be less inclined to do a good job on your roof.

Posted 2 years ago #
bowglie - Member

it's not unusual for a roofer to dart between 2 or 3 jobs a day, while working "for" someone else on one of them. Sure it's possible its his only job, but we are far from knowing that.
Yep, you've got my roofers sussed. To be fair, the one guy is here pretty much all the working week, but the other one is like the Scarlet Pimpernel - I know he's bobbing around between different jobs (just glad I agreed a fixed price with the builder).

Posted 2 years ago #
JacksonPollock - Member

I think the law would be on your side, tort of negligence and all that

How would you prove that the roofer was negligent?

Sounds to me like it was an accident in the true sense of the word rather than 'accident' meaning whose fault was it.

Insurance companys will advise to increase your level of cover when you are having building works done to your house. Have you done this?

Posted 2 years ago #
coffeeking - Member

Sounds to me like it was an accident in the true sense of the word rather than 'accident' meaning whose fault was it.

Not sure there is an accident in the true sense of the word. An unsecured piece of wood on a roof isn't an accident. Someone put it there and didn't secure it.

I'd still swallow the cost though, for the sake of piece and a good job, but I might mention one of his chunks of wood dented my car so he realised his mistake.

Posted 2 years ago #
Speshpaul - Member

"Hw would you prove that the roofer was negligent?
Sounds to me like it was an accident in the true sense of the word rather than 'accident' meaning whose fault was it.
ow would you prove that the roofer was negligent? "

Well if you are paying the builder through the books then its his site, he should have all works safe at all times, we have not had any unseasonally high winds, so he has no excuse for materials falling from the roof. As for parking below the scaffold, he should prevented you from doing so if there was any danger.
Your builder should be insured (you should have asked to see his insurance) although the excess would be pretty high.
You should talk to him about it, whether you push the cost issue is up to you, but you can't have stuff falling off your roof/his site. If the next thing that falls off the roof brains a passer by you'll both be in the sh*t.

But, if its cash in hand/ on the sly then basically its your own fault

Posted 2 years ago #
JacksonPollock - Member

Yeah, and an unsecured slate could blow off the roof, causing damage. I was making the point about negligence.

I for one am sick of the risk averse, blame culture we seem to be increasingly living in. I advocate taking some personal responsibility.

I'd still swallow the cost though, for the sake of piece and a good job, but I might mention one of his chunks of wood dented my car so he realised his mistake.
Yeah so would I (its common sense). I wouldn't try to apportion blame and seek redress though.

Posted 2 years ago #
Speshpaul - Member

"Yeah, and an unsecured slate could blow off the roof, causing damage. I was making the point about negligence."
If a unsecured slate blows off your roof and damages some else or their properly you would be negligent for having a unsecured slate.
Thats why we have insurance.
"I advocate taking some personal responsibility."
Its no differant to your car being damaged at a garage, its the builders site when he starts work. He can refuse access to the property owner if you don't meet his safety requirements, as your safety on his site is his responsibility.

Now, i'm not saying screw the guy for the cost of the repair, thats you're call. But you need to talk to him about site safety.

Posted 2 years ago #
coffeeking - Member

Yeah, and an unsecured slate could blow off the roof, causing damage. I was making the point about negligence.

An unsecured slate is your fault, you have a reasonable responsibility to ensure it's safe, and your insurance covers that. An unsecured building piece during building is his responsibility, and his insurance probably covers that too. In either situation you may choose not to claim, or press for cash, but ultimately the wood is his fault and the slate would be yours. It is negligence, but it's not worth claiming about. It is worth mentioning so he can avoid future claims from people who are less caring.

Posted 2 years ago #
zaskar - Inactive

Wait till he finishes your building work first!

Posted 2 years ago #
chakaping - Member

Not everything is somebody's fault.

Posted 2 years ago #
coffeeking - Member

Not everything is somebody's fault.

Not everything, no. But some things are. This is one. Just the same as if your car door opened in the car park and bounced off the car next to you due to the wind it's your fault too. Just because a force of nature is involved doesn't mean you can't be expected to take reasonable precautions to stop it.

Posted 2 years ago #
JacksonPollock - Member

The builder who employed the roofer has a duty of care to his employee and should ensure the safety of the site. He has an obligation to have a health & safety policy and carry out risk assessments, but only if he employs 5 or more people. The Law (Health & Safety at Work Act 1974) states over and over again 'so far as is reasonably practicable'. How would you prove negligence and thus liability if he can show he was reasonably trying to secure the roof (tarpaulin to make it water tight and minimize further damage to the property). Admittedly you'd only have to prove 'on the balance of probability' (51% v.s 49%). So where is the evidence that the roofer, and vicariously the builder, failed to take reasonable steps to secure materials?

There is evidence to support the view that the OP failed to take reasonable steps to minimize damage to his vehicle.

Posted 2 years ago #
Speshpaul - Member

How would you prove negligence and thus liability if he can show he was reasonably trying to secure the roof

By the mere fact that some of his materials came off his site.
We didn't have a Michael Fish/Katrina moment last night, I'll use that not unseasonal weather line again.
If his temperary roof collapsed under a foot of snow in june the that would be unseasonal, still covered by his insurance but not under negligence. Getting a bit windy in september is business as usual.

Posted 2 years ago #
JacksonPollock - Member

just because materials fell, does not make him negligent. Key wording being reasonable.

So many people swallow the "Health & Safety rhetoric" its unreal. Its driven by litigation and seeking to blame for compensation. It also perpetuates the general populousness misunderstanding of the law.

Posted 2 years ago #
Speshpaul - Member

Materials used to fix the builders water resistant covering blows off the roof. This was work the builder had done, it failed as it blow off the roof in weather conditions that were prodicable. Negligent, failed to secure.

A slate falls off your roof due to the nail retaining it corroding, you are negligent for not carrying building maintainance. Duty of care.

Its all pretty basic stuff really.

Posted 2 years ago #
coffeeking - Member

just because materials fell, does not make him negligent. Key wording being reasonable.

Dear god....

The materials were put up there by him. They SHOULD have been secured in any reasonable situation. Unless you think its unreasonable to assume someone working with chunks of wood above people and property would make sure it can't fall off onto them? If a gale had blown up and knocked it off, sure, but other than that there's no reason that it would come off if reasonable precautions are taken.

So many people go the complete opposite way from the H&S rhetoric that they are at teh complete opposite end of the common-sense scale. It's common sense to secure objects that may fall or be blown off a roof in "normal" conditions, anyone suggesting otherwise really should have their head examined.

Posted 2 years ago #
JacksonPollock - Member

Ok... you try to gain a decision of negligence in Court, you'd struggle. But you know best

The point I was originally making is that I can't abide people who immediately look for someone to blame.

Posted 2 years ago #
bowglie - Member

Crikey, what have I started here!

Bit of an update - I mentioned the 'loose lath incident' to the roofer the morning after it happened and, as I mentioned in the OP, he looked genuinely mortified and said that he'd double check the security of that sort of thing in future (guess he was thinking about the consequences of it hitting a person on the head). FWIW, the lath that came off had only been lightly nailed on, as its purpose was to secure a temporary fixing for a tarpaulin which would be removed the following day. I can appreciate the guys problem - he's got to nail it firm enough to secure the tarp, but if he nails it too hard to the underlying laths, he'll struggle to get the lath off the following morning. Looking at the depth the nails had gone through, I reckon he'd lightly tacked in place to position it, then moved onto about a dozen others, then forgotten to return to this one to secure it properly. er...like me forgetting to tighten my stem bolts once

My feeling is that the incident's one of those six of one, half dozen of the other accidents. As I think the repair is likely to cost about the same as the new bike shorts I was about to buy, I'm gonna pay for the repair myself. I have however, asked the roofer to avoid breaking into the last pallet of tiles if he can, so that I can recoup some cost that way. (as people have said, I suspect that if I start whinging now, there'll be a couple of loose ridge tiles etc. built into the job)

Posted 2 years ago #
stonemonkey - Member

Jason, I dont think you would stuggle prove:

a duty of care
a breach of that duty
and injury or damage

I personally said that I wouldnt persue it however, in principal he has every right to do so. I am not a risk adverse blamer but you need to look at the bigger picture , what if this piece of wood had hit your child / self would you simply shrug your shoulders and say shit happens?

Posted 2 years ago #
coffeeking - Member

The point I was originally making is that I can't abide people who immediately look for someone to blame.

But if it's not you and you'er out of pocket you'd want it sorting. I'm not advocating tripping in the street and claiming thousands for lost earnings, and as you may have noticed I did suggest he swallow the cost, but legally I think its a fairly open and shut case. If its not I'd be worried about the law.

Posted 2 years ago #
JacksonPollock - Member

I agree with you all! However if the complainant was to take the case to court the defendant would argue that he took reasonable steps to secure the wood.

FWIW, the lath that came off had only been lightly nailed on, as its purpose was to secure a temporary fixing for a tarpaulin which would be removed the following day. I can appreciate the guys problem - he's got to nail it firm enough to secure the tarp, but if he nails it too hard to the underlying laths, he'll struggle to get the lath off the following morning.
as I suspected!

The OP has demonstrated that he has not taken reasonable steps to mitigate the increased risk associated with building sites(by parking below scaffolding). It is exactly why insurance companys advise that you increase cover for your property when you are having building works done.

OP you sound a reasonable chap and hope you get sorted without too much expense. IMHO you opted for the right course of action.

Posted 2 years ago #
coffeeking - Member

as I suspected!

Suppose that depends on whether he tacked it down sufficiently for conditions (which his experience should allow him to do), obviously not. But likewise from the outset I agreed that the OP was mad for parking there.

We could argue this all day, but it's getting us nowhere! Well done to the OP, decent builder/roofer for actually caring too.

Posted 2 years ago #
Speshpaul - Member

"I can appreciate the guys problem - he's got to nail it firm enough to secure the tarp, but if he nails it too hard to the underlying laths, he'll struggle to get the lath off the following morning"

I'd him get a Screwfix catalogue.
Did you see what i did there, Screw-fix, clever eh.

Parking, well if you haven't been told, directed or stopped from parking where you did, is it unreasonable as you are not an expert in this field for your to expect it to be safe?

Just like putting fragile roof signs up so that burglars can be worned.

Posted 2 years ago #