Town Resposibility to Mark or Remove Potential Saftey Hazards.

[Avak]

MA, State,

I recently ventured down a road I was not familiar with, it turned into an unpaved road, and appeared to be a road in the process of being constructed.

In the process of turning around I managed to hit a pipe sticking up and out of the ground about 2 feet. It severely damaged the side of my brand new vehicle.

The pipe had was not marked with any safety paint and not at all visible by me as it was well below my field of vision being that it was so low.

I believe it is town owned property and a road in the process of being constructed for water department access. There were NO signs of any sort anywhere to warn of construction or end of pavement for that matter.

My question is would it be wrong of me to pursue reimbursement from the town for damage sustain to my brand new truck? How would I actually do that?

Here is a link to MA state law regarding the matter:
General Laws: CHAPTER 84, Section 15

 

[CJane]

Out of curiosity, how far was the pipe sticking out of the ground? I'm trying to figure out how it was "so low" that it was "completely out of your field of vision", and yet damaged the side of a truck.

Did you take photographs?

 

[Avak]

Yes I took photos and called the town to report it. It was about 2 feet high I would guess. Just high enough to catch the bottom edge of the panels on the truck. It was on the passenger side.

So if you can imagine a fork in the road with a pipe in the middle of it but room to drive completely around the pipe. I parked to the left of the pipe out of the way of any potential traffic and got out of my truck to walk up the road a bit to assess the situation. I then decided to just pull forward and bang a U'y to the right, well I had forgot that the pipe was there because I could not see it on that side of my truck when I got back in. I parked on the left because it seemed like the most out of the way spot to be, in case traffic came along.

I think that if they where in the process of construction they should have took measures to "secure the area" or at the very least remove any potential hazards.

The site should have been blocked off or at the very least warning signs placed to prohibit vehicles.

 

[Zigner]

Yes I took photos and called the town to report it. It was about 2 feet high I would guess. Just high enough to catch the bottom edge of the panels on the truck. It was on the passenger side.

So if you can imagine a fork in the road with a pipe in the middle of it but room to drive completely around the pipe. I parked to the left of the pipe out of the way of any potential traffic and got out of my truck to walk up the road a bit to assess the situation. I then decided to just pull forward and bang a U'y to the right, well I had forgot that the pipe was there because I could not see it on that side of my truck when I got back in. I parked on the left because it seemed like the most out of the way spot to be, in case traffic came along.

I think that if they where in the process of construction they should have took measures to "secure the area" or at the very least remove any potential hazards.

The site should have been blocked off or at the very least warning signs placed to prohibit vehicles.

So you DID know the pipe was there. You drove to the side of it and then forgot about it. Why would you think the city is responsible for your forgetfulness?

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Why would you think the city is responsible for your forgetfulness?

This is Massachusetts - the state that holds landowners liable for injuries sustained slipping on natural accumulations of snow. Why shouldn't the pipe owner be held liable for putting the pipe where someone wanted to drive?

 

[Avak]

Well, it was certainly boneheaded. However I feel that it could have easily happened to any reasonable person that parked in that particular spot. Its just not something that someone would expect to be in the path where vehicles could travel.

I know it sounds sketchy, but it was certainly an accident. I just feel strongly that the pipe should have been clearly marked as it is certainly a hazard or that people should be warned of a construction zone.

Hard to identify unless you experienced it firsthand I guess.

 

[Avak]

So you DID know the pipe was there. You drove to the side of it and then forgot about it. Why would you think the city is responsible for your forgetfulness?

The city is not responsible for my forgetfulness but they are responsible for adhering to rules governing construction and maintenance of roads and paths. If the pipe was visible or blocked off then I would have known it was there (at that moment) which I did not. A safety hazard is a safety hazard whether you know it is there or not.

So if I walk past a hole in the ground (on town property) and avoid it because I see it and then someone calls me to them and I turn around and fall in the hole who is to blame?

 

[Zigner]

The city is not responsible for my forgetfulness but they are responsible for adhering to rules governing construction and maintenance of roads and paths. If the pipe was visible or blocked off then I would have known it was there (at that moment) which I did not. A safety hazard is a safety hazard whether you know it is there or not.

So if I walk past a hole in the ground (on town property) and avoid it because I see it and then someone calls me to them and I turn around and fall in the hole who is to blame?

Per your own admission, it WAS visible. You SAW it and you parked next to it on purpose.

 

[Avak]

Just because i SAW it doesn't mean it's not a hazard.

 

[Zigner]

Just because i SAW it doesn't mean it's not a hazard.

As a driver, it is YOUR responsibility to avoid running in to stationary objects. PARTICULARLY when, moments before, you had seen and avoided that very same object in the very same place.

I'm done - there's already too much of my blood on the wall...

 

[Avak]

Sorry if I beat you up Zigner, im a little on edge after screwing up my truck.

Thanks for your input.

Do you mind me asking, is your opinion from a laypersons perspective or are you in the legal field? Just trying to get an idea what a lawyer would tell me. Thanks

 

[Avak]

Oops, just saw your signature, gotta look at those POSTS,

 

[ecmst12]

You hit the pipe. Your fault. Drivers are expected to see and avoid non-moving road hazards - and it was NOT impossible to see this.

 

[Avak]

You hit the pipe. Your fault. Drivers are expected to see and avoid non-moving road hazards - and it was NOT impossible to see this.

This is an answer I would expect from an insurance adjuster.

If I was asking about an insurance claim you would be 100% correct. If you looked at my link in the original post you would see that MA law holds towns liable for damage to vehicles caused by road conditions that are not addressed by the town.

I believe this may change things.

How would I pursue a claim with the town, and would it be wrong, morally, to do so?

 

[justalayman]

first, you have to establish this is some government entities property and road. Previously you stated this:

I believe it is town owned property and a road in the process of being constructed for water department access.

so the first thing you have to do is figure out who is liable, if the statute is applicable. Then, you need to figure out whether you have to seek permission to sue that entity (often a requirement). Then, if it hasn't been too long (generally there is a very short time limit to initiating action against the government), you file suit in the appropriate court.

Then you start gathering evidence to support your claim. I suspect they will file a lengthy response denying liability due to myriad reasons. You will have to be able to overcome all of those reasons.

I suspect one of them will be that although the law requires a person to have been given reasonable notice of a situation that could cause damage

he may, if such county, city, town or person had or, by the exercise of proper care and diligence, might have had reasonable notice of the defect

that first, there was no requirement to provide additional notice or warning as evidenced by the fact you were aware of the pipe

and second, that even painting it fluorescent orange would still not have prevented this accident as it was not the pipe that was the problem but your lack of being aware of your surroundings that caused your damage.

You see, the point of requiring a warning is that in a situation where a person may not notice a dangerous situation, they might be injured. The fact remains; you did see the pipe. There was no reason to provide additional warning of an obvious defect. It was only your personal defect that caused the damage.

You will have to prove the pipe was somehow obscured from view to a point you would not be aware of it. You were aware of it so you lose.