Diminshed Value Claim against City

[HappyWanderer]

I WAY totally agree.

 

[JETX]

The only claim the OP has is in tort. I think the (potential) tort is...negligence. The cop was negligent in his driving where it hit the OP's (or wife's) parked car.

What kind of drugs are you on??
There is NOTHING in this post to even suggest negligence on the part of the officer.

 

[KnownOne]

If the officer was in control of his vehicle, the accident is his fault. If not, he neglected to follow procedure proper, so he was negligent. Pick which ever sounds best, as the answer is arbitrary based on presented facts.

This is solely my opinion.

 

[JETX]

Even if he has a case, lawyers don't generally take property damage cases on contingency.

Not just 'generally' but NEVER. The simple fact of contingent fee is that there has to be significant money involved. And even if this was a $100,000 property damage claim, the client would be a fool to accept only $60k or so (after fees) to repair his $100k damages.

 

[HappyWanderer]

What kind of drugs are you on??
There is NOTHING in this post to even suggest negligence on the part of the officer.

While I love an argument, perhaps you are the one imbibing?

Someone hit a parked car. What's your theory on that?

I'd address the other issues, but have already dealt with the law on them. Do you have any legal positions to take?

 

[Zachary]

I am not a lawyer and that is why I came here with my original post, but I can add some facts to what appears to be a fascinating discussion/dispute of the "experts".
This is a third party claim in Florida which I know allows for DV cases.
And I have also been told that such cases are based on tort law where the affected party has the right to be made whole.
As to negligence, the officer hopped out of his moving car without putting it in park, and it ran into ours. The local news showed the officers car dash cam view....
Will post later about the possible arbitration route....

 

[JETX]

Someone hit a parked car. What's your theory on that?

negligence
n. failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence is accidental as distinguished from "intentional torts" (assault or trespass, for example) or from crimes, but a crime can also constitute negligence, such as reckless driving. Negligence can result in all types of accidents causing physical and/or property damage, but can also include business errors and miscalculations, such as a sloppy land survey. In making a claim for damages based on an allegation of another's negligence, the injured party (plaintiff) must prove: a) that the party alleged to be negligent had a duty to the injured party-specifically to the one injured or to the general public, b) that the defendant's action (or failure to act) was negligent-not what a reasonably prudent person would have done, c) that the damages were caused ("proximately caused") by the negligence. An added factor in the formula for determining negligence is whether the damages were "reasonably foreseeable" at the time of the alleged carelessness. If the injury is caused by something owned or controlled by the supposedly negligent party, but how the accident actually occurred is not known (like a ton of bricks falls from a construction job), negligence can be found based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor (Latin for "the thing speaks for itself").

you realize that the officers actions do NOT meet the requirements noted above.
HOWEVER, see below:

As to negligence, the officer hopped out of his moving car without putting it in park, and it ran into ours. The local news showed the officers car dash cam view....

Okay, though NOTHING in your previous posts even suggested negligence your latest 'information', when viewed in its ENTIRE context, MIGHT be construed as negligence on the part of the officer.

In any case, you certainly have every right to pursue your claim and see where it gets you. Good luck.

 

[HappyWanderer]

you realize that the officers actions do NOT meet the requirements noted above.

I disagree. Hitting a parked car is almost certainly going to be negligence. However, I also think there will be a defense to the prima facie case. (I do agree with you with the additional facts given by the OP it is far less likely there will be a valid defense.) Let's see, duty, breach, causation and damages....negligence. When I went to school I think they mentioned that in the "tort" category.

So,

Tort law has NOTHING to do with this.

Was probably too broad a statement.

as was:

What kind of drugs are you on??
There is NOTHING in this post to even suggest negligence on the part of the officer.

as was your thoughts on if diminished value was appropriate in this situation.

But, I think we both agree:

In any case, you certainly have every right to pursue your claim and see where it gets you. Good luck.

and that the actual chance of success is a bit more based on the additional facts.

 

[ecmst12]

Any person who gets behind the wheel of a vehicle has a duty to exercise due care, be aware of surroundings, and maintain control of the vehicle. Hitting a parked car or other stationary object is certainly a failure to perform those duties.

 

[KnownOne]

Any person who gets behind the wheel of a vehicle has a duty to exercise due care, be aware of surroundings, and maintain control of the vehicle. Hitting a parked car or other stationary object is certainly a failure to perform those duties.

Unless God says otherwise and acts.