Liable or not?

[Earl Weiss]

Lots of talk on the SS forum about liability.

How about this one.

Busy day, cars proceeding thru tunnel and a car near the exit stops for no apparent reason - car ahead pulled out as seen on video. Seems that car hit the brakes and like domino' 3 cars behind catch up with the 4th being "Sandwiched'" and claiming damage.

And you say? Liable or Not?

 

[MEP001]

I'd want the guy who stopped for no reason to be liable. Maybe recommend to the damaged party to go after the stopper's insurance for the repair?

 

[rph9168]

Since it is on private property I am sure Earl knows that there can be no citation by police so it must be handled by the people involved. I would tell the customer that it is not your responsibility for the damage and recommend they contact their insurance company and let them handle it.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I have provided the license plate # with video footage to the offender and advised them to pursue the negligent party.

I told him the wash operation was functioning properly and what happened was beyond our control. His comment was that I should have people stationed thru the tunnel to observe drivers and stop the operation if they messed up. My response was that was not the standard in the industry.

 

[rph9168]

One of my favorite stories about driver error happened in St Louis at one of Stu Mandel's washes. He had just converted to an Exterior Only wash. We were watching cars go through when one car drove right into the conveyor with stopping going at least 15 miles an hour. Lucky there was no one else on the conveyor and he had no equipment damage because his wash was touchless. The guy just kept on going when he exited the wash.

 

[Waxman]

Not Liable. There was no equipment malfunction. You have met your responsibilities of utmost care. Human error on the part of the customer, not an equipment / employee / safety protocol error.

 

[Hoser06]

Earl
I'm a noob when it comes to conveyors but have you thought about installing an anti-collision pad at the exit?
Are they effective?

 

[Earl Weiss]

Earl
I'm a noob when it comes to conveyors but have you thought about installing an anti-collision pad at the exit?
Are they effective?

They can work, but the car that stopped in this instance was 20 feet from the exit. Have not heard of such a system throughout the tunnel. Over the years people have done all sorts of stupid stuff at various points in the tunnel including one who put the car in reverse, took off, had the video and police went and got he because i had the plate. Even when watching the video she tried to deny it. Other driver got her ins info. Last I heard of it.

 

[jfmoran]

We've had 3 tunnel collisions in the last month (always happens this time of year). We always review the video and inform the customers who was the cause of the incident and that we will not accept any liability for an event that we have no control over.

 

[robert roman]

Liable with respect of the general public means a breach of duty has occurred.

If you fulfilled the obligation to inform, don’t step on brake sign at tunnel entrance, no breach has occurred.

Anti-collision is another matter. For instance, not having anti-collision doesn’t necessarily imply breach of duty because there are other ways to provide duty of care.

For example, curb can be installed on pavement to stop tire and attendant can be present to stop conveyor if necessary.

Conversely, if accident is caused by chain break, car jumping conveyor because something is wrong with track, etc., breach has occurred.

 

[Earl Weiss]

...............................y because there are other ways to provide duty of care.

For example, curb can be installed on pavement to stop tire and attendant can be present to stop conveyor if necessary.

................

1. Don't understand the curb thing - how that would work

2. Attendants are present, but they are 80- 100 feet from location of the numb nuts and typicaly it's after the horn honking and contact that they stop the conveyor.

Had my deposition testimony elicited if attendant would stop conveyor if the they saw a problem developing, or person was walking in front of exiting cars. Attorney had no clue that it's impossible for the attendant to see that area, but more importantly stopping the conveyor won't impeded a driver with the gas pedal floored and the car in gear.

 

[robert roman]

Absent anti-collision system at exit, due care would be to have an attendant present at the exit end to stop conveyor if necessary. Bump is set high enough to stop car after rolling off of conveyor, common at full-service.

Is attendant efficient, no, but it would satisfy due care absent anti-collision.

This is one reason belt conveyors have a bright future. Wheels don't turn.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Attendant at exit don't stop the numb nuts who bump another car in the center because that is where they hit the brakes and the belt won't prevent the person from bumping someone because they have it in drive or reverse.

Of course the poor bumpee has sometimes tried to claim that the wash is liable because it happened on their property.