Defending a car wash

[MikeO]

Hello,

New member. First time post. Long story short, I'm a very young attorney defending a car wash in my first trial (small claims).

I'm hoping to get some opinions. In sum, the Plaintiff claims his F-250 was damaged by a Tunnel Wash type car wash. The Defendant (my client) believes it was operator error. Basically, the car wash owner thinks the Plaintiff pulled up to the entrance of the wash, tripped the photo-eye to start the wash and then backed up (they hand little towels at the start and people often want an extra receipt). The owner thinks the Plaintiff then drove into the wash and the timing was off (as opposed to putting his truck in neutral and being dragged into the photo-eye). Therefore, The Plaintiff's vehicle was either dragged or he drove through one of the two hanging brushes that usually extend out to the sides of the vehicle due to centrifugal force.

Basically, I need to explain what happened in terms that the judge will understand. Does my theory of the case make sense? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

 

[MEP001]

So is this a case of customer error vs. equipment malfunction?

 

[MikeO]

So is this a case of customer error vs. equipment malfunction?

That's how I'd like to characterize it. From my analysis, I guess I don't see how it could be anything else. For example, there is a document that shows that 400 cars or something to that effect were washed that day. It just doesn't make sense to me that the machinery would randomly damage one vehicle and then be fine for the next 200 cars. Does this make sense?

 

[Whale of a Wash]

I did not see you explain any theory to your case. Sounds like you are just trying to explain away, a poor driver that can't listen to directions. How could you be working for the car wash with such poor ideas. I only have self serve washes, so i am not defending a tunnel operator, but i didn't see an explanation that there was a problem with the equipment?? so the only reasonable idea i see is the --The guy can't drive!!! I thought small claims was just both sides going in to tell a judge their case. Who would waste money on an attorney in small claims unless you really are the F250 driver and not an attorney , a reasonable judge should be able to see the problem either way without an attorney. I Opine the driver will not prevail. The car wash owner should be paid time and attorney fees.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Have defended several and find it's a roll of the dice. Would reccomend bringing a video of how it works even if you just have someone shoot a video and show it on your laptop.

Had a customer say the wash "thru her out of the track" yet the car continued to he end without problem. The judge says "Oh yeah, I know how those washes can throw you out of the track and throw you back in again". Lost that one.

I even bring a checkbook now so if I lose I pay in court so no judgement appears of record.

FWIW for an earlier post. Sometimes corps MUST have lawyers. They cannot represent themselves. You never area allowed to be paid for your time and being paid for attny fees typicaly requires a very difficult bad faith finding.

 

[Earl Weiss]

That's how I'd like to characterize it. From my analysis, I guess I don't see how it could be anything else. For example, there is a document that shows that 400 cars or something to that effect were washed that day. It just doesn't make sense to me that the machinery would randomly damage one vehicle and then be fine for the next 200 cars. Does this make sense?

This is your best argument. You didn't specify what the alleged damage was so it's hard to analyse. Keep hamering that the Plaintiff has the burden of proving how the wash was negligent, althjough they have a strong res ipsa loquitor argument.

The wash operator may want to consider investing in cameras.

 

[smokun]

A Few Important Questions

I agree with Earl... and offer these questions to help clear up any doubts.

How was the customer instructed to enter the wash? Was an attendant present to assist in entry of the wash... or to offer guidance? If a self-loading process, was there adequate signage explaining the proper steps?

There is a rule of thumb that many insurance companies and even courts scrutinize: When did your "care, custody and control" occur?

Some feel it occurs when you complete the transaction... while others look at when the attendant takes charge of guiding your actions. Others wait until the vehicle is driven onto the conveyor and placed in "neutral", thus rendering the vehicle out of the customer's control and influenced by the process operation. In the absence of a real live person, the burden lies with the signage and enhancements like overhead mirrors, electronic voice commands or sequential lighting prompts.

-Steve

 

[rph9168]

The times I was involved in small claims cases the best evidence we used was the fact that we washed a large number of vehicles with no damage which either inferred or proved that the problem was caused by their vehicle or they were responsible for the damage themselves not the wash.

 

[buda]

Mike

Confused. You say your client the car wash operator thinks it was operator error. Normally the "operator" is the car wash operator. Do you mean driver?

Call me it is better to talk this thru rather than verbage.

Normally the customer is ALWAYS the one who created the problem and tries to blame the car wash operator.

In Oregon you cannot bring an attorney to Small Claims Court.

Bud Abraham
503 816 7304 Mobile