“Robert, what do you do in situations where the customer refuses to go through the wash again?”
Refusing to cooperate with management’s investigation of incident is like a motorist who flees the scene of an accident because he/she doesn’t want to be busted for DUI regardless if they caused the accident or not.
Here, I would document all the facts on incident report and then file it (copy of video too if necessary) with local police department so it’s on record as such.
“What if you do send the vehicle back through again…..went through OK…..” and customer can’t accept outcome.
Then run it through a third time. Even four if necessary,
“What kind of reasoning do you think would cause that 1 car out of 800 washed yesterday to come off the track that would be caused by the car wash?”
On line is the reasonable person standard which is often used by the court to help determine liability.
Assume customers refuses to fill out or sign incident report, leaves property and then later files suit for damages.
You go to court, make argument based on facts discovered at time of investigation and documented in incident report (i.e. manager and witness statements) and filed with police department (accident report).
Since police didn’t investigate and make a determination of right or wrong, it’s up to judge.
Judge’s view of carwash operator - provided due care and follows industry best practices – tunnel signs, emergency stop buttons in tunnel, anti-collision, equipment and maintenance inspection log, safety meeting log, accident prevention plan (including policy on conflict resolution), completed incident report, etc.
Judges’ view of customer – didn’t cooperate with management’s investigation of incident, left the scene without participating in conflict resolution and no documented facts.
It is now that the other 799 cars are relevant.