Unassumed roads: Who, if anyone, is liable for them? | GTAMotorcycle.com

Unassumed roads: Who, if anyone, is liable for them?

Araqiels

Araqiels

Well-known member
A few months ago, I was driving my cage down a road that was under construction. I saw a protruding sewer grate (sticking out of the ground). Unable to go around it due to the cars blocking it, I went over it at about 15kph. I wouldn't have imagined it was protruding so much, but it ruptured my transmission tank, spilling oil everywhere, and my cage literally came to a grounding halt on it. I reversed off, parked nearby, put my cigarette pack as a comparison to the sewer grate (I had to use my cars headlights to light up the sewer grate, as it was night, and the street was poorly lit). The sewer grate was about the size of a large cigarette pack in height. I took pictures of this from different angles, as well as the damage to my car, and the poorly lit road, got my car towed, and set to work calling the city.

The city took my information down, and they told me to write the details to the city's insurance company. So after a few months of letter writing, and email exchanges, they inform me that the road was unassumed, and that a particular developer is liable for it, so it's out of their hands, but they'll pass on the information to the developer. The developer writes me back that it's come to their attention I had an incident on their roads where my tires got damaged, and that the road was unassumed, and had a sign that said USE AT YOUR OWN RISK, so they can't help me, but I can take it up with their contractor if I'd like. Clearly, they didn't bother investigating it, as they didn't even read what damaged occurred to the vehicle. Nothing happened to my tires.

My question is, in this type of incident, is the developer liable to ensure the roads are evenly paved, and there's no obstacles such as this impeding traffic!? I have two years to pursue this to court, and in October it will have been a year past. So clearly, if I have the option, I'm going to want to take someone to court to reimburse the costs of damages incurred for shoddy roadwork. Could this be pursued? If so, who would be liable - the developer, or the contractor? I would assume the developer, because aren't they in the end responsible for all it's contractors works? Does a sign telling me USE AT YOUR OWN RISK void any responsibility for the quality or lack of that road?

Lastly, anybody know a lawyer who handles these types of claims?

Informed opinions would be appreciated.
 
Not what your going to want to hear.. but Unassumed road use at your own risk means just that. Any perils you should encounter while using that road are your own responsibility. The road is not complete and is not yet ready for general traffic. More then likely it is just 1st base course asphalt and all manholes and catch basins along with the curbs will be a couple of inches above what the current road surface is because they are set to final grade. The road itself will be at that level once they apply the final layer. Usually builders will put the roads in with 1 course of asphalt wait a year or 2 for construction to be done and then come back and make any adjustments and then do the final layer. After that is done the city will inspect and if found to be at spec they will take ownership of that road and it's condition.
 
Sorry to say, but you don't have a leg to stand on. It's an unassumed road; essentially private property, owned by the developer. You are permitted use of it, provided you abide by the "at own risk" terms.
 
Fight it anyway.

You said it was nightime, was the sign that mentioned it was "unassumed road" well lit.

Do you live in a subdivision that the unassumed road leads too? How loong have you lived there? If the developer told you that you can occupy that house, but didnt finish the road, you have a case.

You will win something in court, but I doubt you will get fully reimbursed. Just because the sign said "use at your own risk' etc... does not mean the developer is off the hook.

Same thing if you park your car in a lot and they say that they are not responsible for lost or stolen goods, they are responsible to a certain degree. Or like when you go to a club and check your coat and they lose it (sign says they are not responsible etc.. ) but they will pay.
 
Whether the sign was lit or not is pretty immaterial, as long as it was retro-reflective. Stop signs aren't lit, for example, and yet civic governments aren't at fault if someone runs them and gets into a collision. They are only responsible if negligence can be attached, which is quite unlikely in such a case. the same thing applies to owners of the parking lot, in your example.
 
There is always implied liabilty for cetain actions.

Like I mentioned before, if you lose your jacket at a coat check, the establishment will reimbure you because they knowif you take it too court you will win.

Same with Hotel's and valet parking, they will reimburse you for damage to your car, weither or not it was vandilism or caused by an employee.

If the developer mentioned to the home owners that there homes are ready for occupancy, then it implies a certain liability.

I had a buddy of mine in highschool who drove into a city libary parking lot that was under construction, signed and all, whose car bottomed out causing some damage to his control arm/ball joint. He took it too court and the case was resolved before that actual court date. The city and libary were firm that it was his fault and the signage was proper etc... they wouldnt budge-- but they agreed to settle out of court for a 50/50 split of damages.

The developer or contractor has insurance for these type of instances, what the developer or contractor tell you and what their insurance company tells may not be the same thing.

Im just saying that the OP should persue this to see what happens as I think he will get some sort of settlement-- maybe not 100% but even 50% is better then nothing.
 
He can pursue it if he likes. Might even be given some go-away money. There is no liability here though.
 
Thanks for the reply Gentlemen,

I assume I'm SOL, I do know that USE AT YOUR OWN RISK means just that, however even if I didn't see it, they do have the sign established. Shortly after my incident, the road work was complete.
I will consult with a lawyer, and see what grounds I have for any reimbursement, but I do not have high hopes as is the case.

Anyhow, I agree with most of you, that this will likely be a drain of money, and time, and I should take the loss.

However, just in case, anybody recommend any lawyers?
 
I recommend Celino & Barnes.. Other option is Nicholas, Perrault and Strauss.. Hurt in a car? Call William Matar 444-4444! What I really mean to say is that you should own up to your own idiocy and stop trying to get some other poor sucker to pay for it. /thread
 
This is not something you need a lawyer for, other then to maybe draft a letter to get a quicker settlement.

Call around some paralegals, do some research on your own time to see if there is any case law for similar cases and judgements and move forword from there.

This is something that small claims court can handle.

BUT, it will cost you the some money up front Aprrox $200 to file and even if you get awarded a judgement, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that the defendent will indeed pay.

Get a lawyer to write a letter, and see how they respond, that might be enough to get them to agree to some sort of settlement.
 
It's people like you and the op that will cause the developer to post no trespassing signs. Get to your new house via helicopter or wait until the road is finished. Grow up and take responsibility for your actions instead of looking who to blame first.
twinn said:
There is always implied liabilty for cetain actions.Like I mentioned before, if you lose your jacket at a coat check, the establishment will reimbure you because they knowif you take it too court you will win.Same with Hotel's and valet parking, they will reimburse you for damage to your car, weither or not it was vandilism or caused by an employee.If the developer mentioned to the home owners that there homes are ready for occupancy, then it implies a certain liability.I had a buddy of mine in highschool who drove into a city libary parking lot that was under construction, signed and all, whose car bottomed out causing some damage to his control arm/ball joint. He took it too court and the case was resolved before that actual court date. The city and libary were firm that it was his fault and the signage was proper etc... they wouldnt budge-- but they agreed to settle out of court for a 50/50 split of damages. The developer or contractor has insurance for these type of instances, what the developer or contractor tell you and what their insurance company tells may not be the same thing.Im just saying that the OP should persue this to see what happens as I think he will get some sort of settlement-- maybe not 100% but even 50% is better then nothing.
Click to expand...
 
Araqiels said:
I was driving my cage down a road that was under construction.
I saw a protruding sewer grate (sticking out of the ground).
I went over it at about 15kph.
I wouldn't have imagined it was protruding so much.
Click to expand...

The way it could be seen it is you were driving, saw the obstruction and used bad judgement. Hard to fight. You chose to try it.
 
Paul said:
It's people like you and the op that will cause the developer to post no trespassing signs. Get to your new house via helicopter or wait until the road is finished. Grow up and take responsibility for your actions instead of looking who to blame first.
Click to expand...

+1 AMEN!!!

In any case something doesn't add up in the op's story... Going 15km/h, hitting the grate an causing damage? He was either doing way over 15km/h or the car is slammed WAY too low to the ground. In any case it's not the developer's responsibility. And before a bunch of people come out with fantasy scenarios about how it's possible, I come from a country where people routinely park on curbs and they routinely climb them doing an easy 15km/h. You don't see a bunch of disabled cars there, so there's something that the OP's embellishing here.

Whatever it was, it's clearly the OP's responsibility.. However, the OP is looking to have someone else pay for the self-inflicted damage and people are helping him. People, we're not lawsuit-happy Yanks and let's not turn Canada into the U.S. of A.
 
FiReSTaRT said:
Whatever it was, it's clearly the OP's responsibility.. However, the OP is looking to have someone else pay for the self-inflicted damage and people are helping him. People, we're not lawsuit-happy Yanks and let's not turn Canada into the U.S. of A.
Click to expand...

There are, unfortunately, many frivolous lawsuits in this country.
 
invictus43 said:
There are, unfortunately, many frivolous lawsuits in this country.
Click to expand...

Not as many as in the neighboring nation and neither should there be any more.
 
Interesting situation. If you were to proceed, would they decide that it was too costly to fight and make you pay, so they would pay you off, or would they argue that if you'd paid due care and attention then you would not have had a problem, and try and get you charged?

I see some nice irony in talking about frivilous lawsuits, when we have such a great rate of frivilous claims of innocence in traffic court around here.
 
Paul said:
It's people like you and the op that will cause the developer to post no trespassing signs. Get to your new house via helicopter or wait until the road is finished. Grow up and take responsibility for your actions instead of looking who to blame first.
Click to expand...

What?

OP asked for thoughts on his situation and I gave him my honest opinon.

IMO, if the developer tells me that I can move in and leaves huge crates for me to drive over, that is assumed liabilty. I would rather wait that extra 1-2-3-4 weeks to get the road paved then to move into a sub division that is not finished.

Why wouldnt a developer post no trespassing signs to begin with, they all do that anyway during the build.
 
Baggsy said:
Interesting situation. If you were to proceed, would they decide that it was too costly to fight and make you pay, so they would pay you off, or would they argue that if you'd paid due care and attention then you would not have had a problem, and try and get you charged?

I see some nice irony in talking about frivilous lawsuits, when we have such a great rate of frivilous claims of innocence in traffic court around here.
Click to expand...

You're talking apples and oranges here; tort law and criminal charge. There are no "frivolous claims of innocence." The State must prove you guilty in criminal matters; even those as 'frivolous' as traffic citations. If you choose to avail yourself of your right to face your accusers then that is, as I stated, your right under law.

Taking a case to court, in hopes of receiving an out of court settlement in a case where you have no hope of success, is indeed frivolous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom