Of course the city denied the claims, they wouldn’t have it any other way. Don’t you know, the citizens of Sioux Falls are innocent until proven guilty;
Seven drivers asked the city of Sioux Falls to pay for vehicle repairs they said were caused by hitting potholes on city streets.
The formal claims to the city involved popped tires and damaged rims. The bill totaled $2,700 from the five drivers who listed the cost of their repairs.
The city’s risk management director, Regan Smith, said the city investigated the claims and decided it was not liable.
The city received four claims of pothole damage last year. Drivers whose claims are denied by the city can take their case to court.
Yeah, and spend $40,000 fighting the city in court for $2,700 in damages. There is only one reason these claims were denied; they would have set precedent.
It is pretty difficult to prove this is the “fault” of the city. They can’t exactly prevent 100% of the potholes and in essence I assume they would fall under some type of “act of God” clause.
Clearly the city has a lot of room to wiggle out of this one. We know they have been slacking when it comes to road repairs, but even the best maintained roads will have the occasional pothole as they can’t be prevented… especially with a winter like we had this year. So how does one prove the pothole they hit was due to poor maintenance versus a random event? I’d say the burden of proof on the drivers is extremely high, and they would need to prove that the city was negligent in failing to fix the specific pothole that resulted in the damage. Good luck on that one.
So what is next – drivers blaming the city for making the concrete too slippery when snow falls on it? How about blaming the city because there weren’t enough foot-candles of light which resulted in a driver hitting a cat at 2:00am?
Let’s all get real for a second. It is the driver’s responsibility to avoid potholes, and if they fail at that task they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Oh, I agree. It would be like me suing the city for $3.00 to wash my car when a bird shits on it from a city owned tree. It just is not realistic. BUT, the city does have a responsibility to make our roads safe. Luckily no one was injured, then this would be a whole different ball of wax.
I would disagree with you on one level though, what if the pothole was unavoidable?
To some degree, there is an accepted risk when you choose to drive on city streets. Whether it is a stray rock kicked up which results in a crack across the windshield, a pothole large enough to swallow a Honda Civic, or a section of concrete that heaved in hot weather – stuff just happens.
If someone feels the risk to their automobile is too great, they have the option of not driving on the streets.