OT - What should I about tow truck damage?

[trader4]

The part I'm having trouble with is that there was no damage from going into the ditch, but there was damage in removing it from the ditch. I can see two likely scenarios:

1 - Car goes into ditch big time, sustains damage and is in the ditch in such a way that hooking on to it for removal with a conventional tow would cause some slight additional damage.

2- Car just barely goes into ditch, with no damage, in which case I would think it should be able to be removed without damage.

As Toller pointed out, the tow operator should have told his son upfront that he could not remove it without damaging it, in which case he could have pursued other options. If he simply removed it and damaged it in the process, then I would pursue a claim against the tow company. Worst case, you could take them to small claims court. Since you have a witness, you should be in a pretty good position.

[Goedjn]

No, it's not.

Eat the loss. Beat the son. If both the son and the car are still in working condition, count your blessings.

[Jeff Wisnia]

Sometimes you just have to sigh, take your lumps and get on with life. I'd be fairly certain that the tow truck operator didn't deliberately try and damage that panel.

Similar thing happened to my daughter when her car's electrical system suddenly was "dead"; no lights, cranking or anything. She called AAA and the guy who came was either too stupid to find the obvious (a dirty battery cable connector.) or more likely wanted the extra income for a tow job, so he told daughter there was no hope of getting it going on the spot and towed her car 20 miles to the mechanic we've used for years and trust.

He cleaned the battery cable in a jiffy, and the engine started right up, but then he discovered a hole ground through the front edge of the car's transmission pan through which all the fluid had vamoosed. The guy had towed the car by lifting the rear end and either got it too high or went over some lousy pavement.

Fortunately our mechanic is the kind of guy who'd rather braze up the hole himself rather than stick us for a new transmission pan, so the whole bill from him was about ninety bucks, including a new gasket, filter and fluid.

I considered us lucky to get out of it for that little. Hell, you can hardly get a good dinner and a couple of glasses of wine for that here in Red Sox countrey these days.

Happy Holidays,

Jeff

[Goedjn]

The two are severable. Your son *IS* responsible. Ideally, it would be a point of pride in him to repair any damage to the car while it was in his care, even if he *DIDN'T* do anything wrong, but that's a little much to expect in today's world. The tow-truck driver may also be responsible. (Although, if he is, it's to the son, not to you.) In any case, you are unlikely to recover enough money to make going after the tow-truck company financially rewarding. If you think they are ACTUALLY, as opposed to possibly legally responsible, (as in, they chose to haul the car out between two cement bollards instead of the other way) you might want to go after them out of vindictiveness, but if you have to ask here, you're nowhere near sure enough to make that reasonable.

[Dan Espen]

The part you are not seeing is that the damage to the car would have never occurred unless the car went into the ditch.

The way this was described, I don't think there was any negligence on the part of the tow truck driver.

[trader4]

1. Goedjn

"Eat the loss. Beat the son.

Yes, you do. "

I fail to see why anyone should eat the loss just because the tow truck operator says the damage was unavoidable. If it's really small, it may not be worth pursuing, but I sure don't see how asking about it makes Toller a jerk. The tow operator is supposed to be a professional. He should be able to determine up front it he can safely pull the car out. If he thought there was risk, then he should have stated so and then the son could have called another tow company or pursued other options. Since he damaged it, there is a good chance he is responsible for it, but without being there or knowing all the facts, its hard to tell.

BTW, beating the son is a bad advice too.

[RicodJour]

I think the point is your son used your car, had an accident, and it's his responsibility to fix the situation. There is little reason for you to get involved if your son is of legal age. Let him learn how these things work.

The damage sounds slight, a couple or few hundred at worst. If he wants to take the tow truck company to small claims court, let him.

It might also be time to talk about him getting a car of his own and his own insurance. You could reimburse him for the amount of money he would add to your policy if he was under your coverage...or not. That would depend on how independent you want him to become, how soon and his age.

R

[Joshua Putnam]

Two thoughts:

1. What did your son sign before having the work done? There's a very good chance he explicitly acknowledged the risk of damage from the tow and waived his right to recover against the tow operator for anything short of willful negligence. (If so, remind your son never to sign a contract without reading it first. Tow operators aren't the only people whose contracts are designed to protect them from dissatisfied customers.)

If the car was in your son's care and control, and if he acknowledged the risk of damage and waived claims against the tow operator, your beef is with your son, not the tow operator.

1. Were the police called? If not, you might save the most money by paying for the repair yourself, since that keeps your son's negligent accident off of insurance records.

(Legally, of course, you should report the accident to the insurance company yourself, probably required by your insurance contract. But a lot of people take care of little things themselves to avoid raising their insurance premiums. Not exactly legal, but common.)

If you get away without the insurance company finding out about your son's accident, remind him how extremely lucky he is to only have to pay off the repair bill instead of paying more for insurance for the next several years.

[Jim Yanik]

[e-mail] wrote in news: [e-mail]:

HOW do you(or he) really know that?

[chickenwing]

then they should pay for it

why not get your estimates for repair and call the tow company. Tell them you intend that they pay for it.

that would be a first step next you would have to take them to court

whoever messed the car up should pay for it

(it's a cheap education for the tow driver)

[Edwin Pawlowski]

The question is : Who messed it up?

If the tow driver was negligent, yes. If he truly could not pull it out with no risk of damage, no, the kid should pay.

We did not see the car or how it was in the ditch. None of us can pass judgment not having seen the circumstances. Perhaps a crane or helicopter was needed to avoid damage. We just don't know.

[TURTLE]

This is Turtle .

You remine me of a fellow here in town who worked for the INS office and was not real smart in what and how things work in the world. his wife was black and he was white and did not know about operation on black people is different than operating on white people.

His wife went in the hospital at 2:00 a.m. to remove her appendix and everything went well and in about 5 week later he sees the doctor and tells him that he messed up and left a bad scare on his wife by having a bad white mark where they had cut on here. The Doctor told him that was normal and that he need to get a doctor to remove the white mark and the scare in another operation. The fellow end up sueing the doctor for leaving the white mark & scare and lost because it was common practice to do it this away and lost another way of wanting the doctor to do elective surgery to remove the white skin also. he lost in all about $14k in tring to get some free elective surgery and also having to pay for the elective surgery .

this proceedure may have changed now a days with all the big hospital with all kinds of doctor on duty but back then there was one country doctor on duty and he was just a General prec. and did some small operations in the bind. any thing big you was sent about 60 miles to another hospital for anything more than this. then Elective surgery was elective surgery.

You might better check to see what was done and what is standard operating proceedure in the towing business in your state or County.

TURTLE

[trader4]

"The part you are not seeing is that the damage to the car would have never occurred unless the car went into the ditch."

And what does that have to do with anything? I suppose if Toller takes the car to a body shop for repair and they let it fall off the lift while it's there, the body shop isn't responsible either, because it never would have occurred if the car went into the ditch? How about if the body shop sprays paint onto his seats? That wouldn't have happened either if the car hadn't gone into the ditch. Who's right here depends on many things, but the fact that the car was in the ditch has nothing to with it.

[Dan Espen]

Whatever news reader you are using, it failed to correctly mark the attribution.

I'm guessing that's my response.

The part you left out is that I went on to say they there didn't appear to be any negligence reported by the original poster.

Letting a car fall off a lift or spraying the seats sounds like negligence.

Trying to pull a car out of a ditch and damaging it in the process doesn't. At least to me.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Exactly. I mentioned before, we don't know the real circumstances, how the car was sitting, what is was sitting on or against. It really may have been impossible to pull out and not do any damage. None of us was there so we do not know.

[Andy Asberry]

It also has nothing to do with how old the son is; whether he is living with his parents or in a whorehouse; whether he was racing in a school zone or avoiding an old lady in a wheelchair; or who is paying for the repairs.

Fact, according to the OP, the tow truck driver acknowledged he damaged the car and that it was unavoidable. Maybe so, with the equipment *he* had. If he could not do the recovery without additional damage, he should have declined the job or waited for proper equipment. A more technical recovery probably would have cost more but that is not our topic here.

In this state at least, once he attaches his hook, he is in "care, custody and control" of the vehicle. And is liable for damages to it other than illegal acts such as theft, arson or vandalism.

Most towing companies actually engage in two main businesses; recovery and towing. Recovery is getting the vehicle in a position to tow. Maybe pulling from a ditch or a lake or getting it off its roof. Once it is "on the hook" and moving, it becomes cargo.