Comments on: Man drives car into light pole in Wal-Mart parking lot

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 21:05:35 +0000

For “particle” read “particular” above.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 21:05:09 +0000

Richard@I’m not sure that it is fair to base the damages on what an insurance company would have done. As you say, insurance companies prefer to write off the vehicle if repairing it would be more expensive, but people do have attachments to particle vehicles (and to models which they may not be able readily to replace), and they may also be of the view that repair is environmentally the better approach. They may also not be in a position to buy a new(er) vehicle. Therefore, the owner may well be considered reasonable in wanting to repair his vehicle rather than write it off. The general principal in tort is the the victim should be “made whole”, and that doesn’t necessarily have to mean “what an insurance company would have done”.

By: Lesley Stevens

Lesley Stevens — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 23:50:47 +0000

Aside to VMS: Did you go to the University of Iowa?

By: L Nettles

L Nettles — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 13:39:03 +0000

Yeah, I hate driving between the lines. Popcorn driving in a natural right.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 13:37:38 +0000

Bob, what I mean is that, insofar as someone other than the driver is liable (which is probably not the case), the amount of damages claimed is reasonable.

Not really. I just checked with Cars.com and the value of a 1997 Chevrolet S10 ranges from $1365 to $2065. If this was an insurance claim the car would have been considered totaled and he would have gotten only the actual value of the truck.

By: Bob Lipton

Bob Lipton — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 04:06:46 +0000

If you mean that the monetary damages is in line with the actual physical damages, then I agree, but given the assumption that the claims are frivolous — in the human, rather than the legal sense — then any awards are unreasonable.

Otherwise, I want that dollar.

Bob

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 03:19:40 +0000

Bob, what I mean is that, insofar as someone other than the driver is liable (which is probably not the case), the amount of damages claimed is reasonable.

By: Bob Lipton

Bob Lipton — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 21:48:26 +0000

Bill, if the liability is not reasonable, how can the damage be?

If you think it reasonable, gimme a dollar.

Bob

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 19:47:52 +0000

At least in this case the damage claim is reasonable, even if the liability claim isn’t.

By: roy

roy — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 19:26:33 +0000

Previous crashes don’t necessarily mean there’s anything wrong with the pole. There are thousands of Wal-Marts in the country, with hundreds of poles each. There would be some with higher-than-usual impacts even if by chance.

Note: numbers totally made up.