Had a customer go off the conveyor track and the car behind him ended up running into the back of his vehicle. Customer was on the phone and we have video in the tunnel where you see the front wheel go off the track. We are a rear wheel push car wash and there is nothing in the track that would cause the vehicle to go off of the track. Customer states he did not touch the steering wheel but after being put back on the track, makes it through the rest of the car wash tunnel. No other car's before or after have any issues for the rest of the day (we end up washing 800 cars this day). We plan on informing both parties that unless the driver turns the wheel, it is virtually impossible for a vehicle to come off the track and that the first driver is the responsible party for any damages. Just wanted to get some feedback from other operators that have had this issue come up at their wash.......
Vehicle Comes Off Conveyor
- Thread starter hkim310
- Start date
I have seen cars out of alignment jump the track but again it is the customer's fault. The fact that you have washed so many cars without incident would be very good for a defense if he wants to take you to court. I would not pay.
robert roman
Bob Roman
“Had a customer go off the conveyor track… we plan on informing both parties….that the first driver is the responsible party for any damages.”
A good attorney would have a field day with this, and the court would probably take a dim view of your approach to conflict resolution.
The video may show customer on phone (distracted) but this proves nothing.
For example, most exterior conveyor entrance instructions – car in neutral, foot off brake, hands off wheel, antenna down, wipers off - thank you, enjoy the ride.
“….unless the driver turns the wheel, it is virtually impossible for a vehicle to come off the track….”
What is the proof? It’s not the other 799 cars.
Proof would be sending the car back through the tunnel with no one inside. If the car then stays on track the entire length of conveyor, proof in pudding.
This is why it is crucial for carwash operator to have written accident prevention plan.
This means acting on policies and procedures at time of incident including carwash incident report that customer must fill out and sign and manager’s review and investigation report that manager must sign.
A good attorney would have a field day with this, and the court would probably take a dim view of your approach to conflict resolution.
The video may show customer on phone (distracted) but this proves nothing.
For example, most exterior conveyor entrance instructions – car in neutral, foot off brake, hands off wheel, antenna down, wipers off - thank you, enjoy the ride.
“….unless the driver turns the wheel, it is virtually impossible for a vehicle to come off the track….”
What is the proof? It’s not the other 799 cars.
Proof would be sending the car back through the tunnel with no one inside. If the car then stays on track the entire length of conveyor, proof in pudding.
This is why it is crucial for carwash operator to have written accident prevention plan.
This means acting on policies and procedures at time of incident including carwash incident report that customer must fill out and sign and manager’s review and investigation report that manager must sign.
Earl Weiss
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 6,342
- Reaction score
- 926
- Points
- 113
Had a trial on just such a case. (Even brought a video on my laptop. Used an escalator / moving sidewalk analogy) Better, since I was there I checked tire PSI on the Van. 60 psi in one front tire and 15 in the other. I had denied liability and State Farm, his company paid him for repairs to hi vehicle and then sued me. The repair bill also listed a wheel alignment. I asked the Driver if there were any wheel alignment issues caused by the occurrence and he said no.
My argument was that the vehicle came out because of the tire pressure issue and wheel alignment issue (I had articles supporting this proposition. . Poorly educated judge ruled in State Farm favor (Gave half of claimed damages - another story) Saying I could inspct cars before they enter and I accept people as I find them (Sometimes called the "Eggshell plaintiff" ) but this is a damages principal not a liability principal.
Bottom line was would not lie down for a BS groundless claim, especially for State Farm. End note - at Trial customer says he still washes by me!
What I like to do, aside from checking PSI on those rare occasions when this happens is drive the vehicl on a flat surface a few yards and see if it pulls.
My argument was that the vehicle came out because of the tire pressure issue and wheel alignment issue (I had articles supporting this proposition. . Poorly educated judge ruled in State Farm favor (Gave half of claimed damages - another story) Saying I could inspct cars before they enter and I accept people as I find them (Sometimes called the "Eggshell plaintiff" ) but this is a damages principal not a liability principal.
Bottom line was would not lie down for a BS groundless claim, especially for State Farm. End note - at Trial customer says he still washes by me!
What I like to do, aside from checking PSI on those rare occasions when this happens is drive the vehicl on a flat surface a few yards and see if it pulls.
Earl Weiss
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 6,342
- Reaction score
- 926
- Points
- 113
Thanks for all the replies! I definitely hadn't thought of vehicles that have alignment issues or tire pressure issues. Those both seem like candidates for vehicles that could come off the conveyor track.
Robert, what do you do in situations where the customer refuses to go through the wash again? What if you do send the vehicle back through again and the customer states that just because it went through OK a 2nd time does not mean there wasn't something "wrong" that happened in the wash that caused the vehicle to go off the track the 1st time? 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? We do have the signs you mentioned above that state instructions to the customer upon arrival into the wash tunnel.
Robert, what do you do in situations where the customer refuses to go through the wash again? What if you do send the vehicle back through again and the customer states that just because it went through OK a 2nd time does not mean there wasn't something "wrong" that happened in the wash that caused the vehicle to go off the track the 1st time? 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? We do have the signs you mentioned above that state instructions to the customer upon arrival into the wash tunnel.
Last edited:
What is the proof? It’s not the other 799 cars.
We used the number of cars washed without incident and alignment issue successfully in court. The guy had an old Chevy Blazer that jumped the track and damaged two of our arches. Tried to get us to repaint his Blazer and get dents out. Much like Earl's situation the guy presented a bill that also showed the need for alignment and u-joints. The thing that really ****ed me off in this case the guy was a doctor and tried to also get reimbursed for his time he used to get estimates as well as rental car charges. It felt so good to beat the jerk in court.
We used the number of cars washed without incident and alignment issue successfully in court. The guy had an old Chevy Blazer that jumped the track and damaged two of our arches. Tried to get us to repaint his Blazer and get dents out. Much like Earl's situation the guy presented a bill that also showed the need for alignment and u-joints. The thing that really ****ed me off in this case the guy was a doctor and tried to also get reimbursed for his time he used to get estimates as well as rental car charges. It felt so good to beat the jerk in court.
robert roman
Bob Roman
“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.
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.
I still beg to differ based on my experience. In our case the judge mentioned the fact that we had washed so many vehicles without incident that it seemed reasonable that the problem was not the equipment. Our incident report and the copy of the owner's own estimate showing the need of u-joints and an alignment were definitely helpful but the volume without a problem was the main consideration.
For customers that want to believe the car wash caused the issue, it won't matter if you run the car though 100000 more times without issue. They will always state that just because it was run through successful after the fact does not indicate there wasn't a problem with the initial run through. I don't think you can compare not wanting to go through a car wash again after your vehicle has been in an accident with fleeing an accident scene. Although I think it is good practice to run the car through the tunnel again, I don't think it is completely out of bounds for a customer to not want their vehicle to be run through a wash again after an accident if they assume the problem was due to a car wash malfunction. I do tend to agree with rph9168. The volume of vehicles that are run through without incident both before and immediately after speak volumes on the potential of a car wash problem that caused the accident in question. Thanks for all of the insight fellas!
Earl Weiss
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 6,342
- Reaction score
- 926
- Points
- 113
My View of Judges after a couple of trials on this issue is you roll the dice. Actual comments by judge: "I know how those car washes do. They can throw you off the conveyor and throw you back on again"
"You could have inspected the car" (Checked Tire Pressure before it went in) and car with wheel alignment repair on State Farm sheet along with Body repairs where customer testified no wheel alignment issues "You take the Customer as you find them."
I'd rather not be an easy target and just pay when it goes against me.
I'd rather not be an easy target and just pay when it goes against me................my sentiments exactly!
I absolutely agree!
I agree with Earl about judges. We won a fair share of any claims against us but some of those we lost were due to the judge's bias. It is somewhat a crapshoot whenever you go to court but I agree to settle out of convenience is a big mistake that makes you a target for some. We also paid up if it was our fault which is something else an operator should do. For the most part we paid most claims out of pocket unless the damages were substantial which only happened a few times.
