Last Wednesday, my car was badly damaged in the parking lot of a building complex where I work. Someone must’ve rammed into it at a high speed because the front bumper was completely removed and parts were literally laying on the floor around it. Needless to say, I was completely shocked and in total disbelief that this could’ve happened in the broad daylight, no witnesses have come forward, no note was left etc. I have plenty of photos depicting the damage and the car is currently in the shop being repaired.
There are no security cameras in the parking lot and no attendant.
These incidents have happened before to my coworkers, even to the president of the company but nothing was ever done or changed by the building management.
Fortunately, all expenses except for the deductible will be covered by insurance but some of my colleagues have approached me and suggested I should sue the building owners for not having the adequate protections provided to the tenant property. I highly doubt that I have a case here but was wondering if anyone might’ve been in a similar situation or might have come across something like this in their professional life if you are an attorney.
Someone suggested I go to the small claims court. Is this something I could pursue you think based on the information I provided?
I don’t think an attorney could answer that without being licensed in your state, and also wouldn’t want to give legal advice in a setting like this. But as a matter of lay person opinion it sounds like an uphill battle to try to prove exactly what the building owner’s duty is and how he/she has failed it, and you’re also going to have to spend some court fees and a lot of emotional energy even in small claims court. The easiest thing might be to just live with paying the deductible and try to put it behind you.
Can the tenant businesses put pressure on the building’s management company to address the safety/security problem?
In my experience (as a car owner, not a lawyer), if there were a case for another party being liable for your damages, your insurance company would be going after them already.
You might want to check…but the parking garages I have parked in clearly state that they hold no liability for damages incurred while in their lots. I think this could be challenged if the building collapsed. But in your case, the parking garage owner had no hand in the cause of damages.
What was he supposed to do? Prevent someone from parking there because they had the potential to be a wreckless driver?
But if you want some legal advice about this…is there a legal aid society or law school where you could,seek a legal opinion about this?
@thumper1:
Speaking speculatively (since I am not a lawyer, won’t even pretend to be one on tv), one thing the OP might be able to argue is that given in this day and age security cameras are everywhere and not exactly costing a mint, that it was negligent not to have them in the parking lot. I don’t know where the building is, what kind of area it is, but for example I know of cases where with an office building and its parking lot, where employees working late were attacked or robbed and the management of the building was found negligent for not having, at the least, monitored security cameras, which by themselves act as a deterrent to crime, especially if multiple instances happen.
I will add that I doubt the OP if they went to small claims court would have much luck, especially since they had collision insurance which covered the damage,especially if it covered the deductible.
For the OP, one thing I would recommend is talk to the management of your company and suggest they talk to the building management about getting cameras installed, if other people have had their car damaged in the lot/garage like you did, they may be willing to talk to them, plus I would also point out that an unprotected lot like that with no cameras could also allow someone to be robbed or hurt or worse…might work, worth a shot.
OP – you wouldn’t have a legal claim – or at least to the extent that you can claim one, your insurance company would be subrogated --because the insurer is the one who has suffered monetary loss. The issue isn’t that the accident took place but that you couldn’t identify the driver at fault – but you were covered under the comprehensive provisions of your policy, which are designed for exactly that situation: damage to your parked car.
But I don’t think there would be any viable claim of liability because you are not arguing that a dangerous condition on the premises was the cause of the accident – only that the lack of surveillance camera was the cause of the hit-and-run driver not getting caught.
I would agree that there is an issue for building tenants to raise with management as to other concerns about potential safety – but that is a different question than a lawsuit.
Thank you everyone! You’ve confirmed what I’ve been thinking that there is not much I can really do.
I have spoken to the management and they assured me that the issue will be raised with the building owner.
I just find it unconscionable that the owner wouldn’t install a camera, I think it could’ve actually prevented the incident from happening in the first place, if there were signs posted everywhere, I would imagine the perpetrator would think twice about being careless and also about leaving without a trace.
Check with your insurance company about filing the claim under your uninsured motorist coverage. That would prevent you from having to pay the deductible since it was a hit and run and an unidentifiable driver is considered uninsured. Also an insurance company should not hold an uninsured motorist claim against you and increase your rate in the future.
Agree with everyone else that you do not really have a valid claim against the building owner or your insurance would be subrogating against them.
Seems like in order to claim negligence, the plaintiff would have to prove that the building owners were REQUIRED to have cameras and refused to comply. Easier said than done.
re #3. Wreckless driver and reckless driver aren’t the same thing!
As to the OP I don’t think you have any sort of case here, but I’d encourage the building to consider security cameras. I know how infuriating it is when this sort of thing happens.
Personally, I would not feel safe walking to and from my car if there have been multiple hit and run accidents in the lot. I would put that in writing to your management and to the building management.
Personally, I would just pay me deductible, get the car fixed and move on. You really do not want to go thru all the expense and trouble to sue over your deductible. That is about all you could receive. Anything over and above that is a risky proposition despite what the lawyer will say as she takes your cash.
@123Mom456 That is not how it works in many states. The victim must pay the deductible if there is no evidence as to who else did it. Just how it works in some states - like here in MA.
