MxdOut97

iTrader: (1)

ill make this short.

i loaned my car to a friend and someone his them in a walmart parking lot who was driving throught the asiles a little fast for a parking lot. the cop got there wrote up a report, but said since its on private property, neither party is liable for damages to the other persons car. so im asking, is this right, it doesnt sound like it. also if it is true and i have to deal with the damages myself, does it go on my insurance or my friends? thanks

shur

The cop is either lying or does not know what he/she is talking about. One is always liable for a misfeasance.

In other words, if a person has improperly, illegally or inappropriately drove a car, and this caused an accident (either in a private or public parking lot) - that person will be liable (assuming your friend was not contributorily negligent).

I need more facts to definitely give you an answer.

HTH
Scott.

upstatemax

iTrader: (15)

Walmart should have it on vid... My car got nailed by a cart at Walmart giving it a nice dent... Walmart had it on vid and they paid out for it. All Walmarts are supposed to have cameras.

The vid should show the other guy going fast... More proof is always better.

upstatemax

iTrader: (15)

Not sure about CT, but some states have a no-fault policy about parking lot accidents.

NisTech

in most places public law only applies on public roads. That law does not apply on private properties and it goes 50/50. I think that if hte cop said that it must be true for your state. Cops do know what they are talking about. It's an easy colision that everyone knows. End of story. When you lend your car you lend your insurance so i sugest you fix your cars and not let insurance know if it's not much damage. However not it may be too late.

carsarecool

iTrader: (1)

I thought it was the DRIVER not the car... I let my buddy, who took his car off the road and cancelled his insurance(back in high school) drive my car adn thought it was ok cause I had valid insurance but I got yelled at for it. And vice-versa, I've driven a car a few miles that wasnt registered or insured because I had my own insurance and THOUGHT it was ok ??

shur

Misfeasance, as I state again , apply in both public and private (place) settings. All of the 50 states in USA are common law jurisdiction. Do not give out false information.

However, as upstatemax stated above, if CT has a no fault local statute, then it will apply. As I have stated before, I need more facts to help you. Find out if your state is no fault jurisdiction. And based on my personal experience, cops do not have much knowledge of common law. Cops do, however, have knowledge of the local ordinances applicable to their township.

HTH
Scott.

Rydicule

This is hotly debated. Most will make the argument that insurance companies insure a CAR, not a driver... which is true in most respects. If your buddy wrecked your car, the insurance would still be liable to pay for it, as it is YOUR property that was damaged while it was insured... unless the insurance company had specifically stated in your agreement that the allowance of specific named driver was a reckless action, therefore your liability.

However, in the case where an insured driver causes damage to ANOTHER vehicle NOT on his policy, it would depend on his insurance. In CT, he is required by law to have liability insurance, and he could claim the damage to your car as the result of his action, and payments could be made to your car up to the value of his liability.
(Think about the scenario where you get into an accident with a rental car. Your insurance will still pay the damage on the rental if you crash it.)

Rydicule

I think you're a little confused Scott. Misfeasance is performing a legal action improperly. Classic example of a misfeasance is a doctor who writes a prescription and accidentally writes the wrong dosage. While it was an accident and he therefore could not have legal action taken against him, he could still lose license/right to practice his job. The more appropriate term would be malfeasance, which literally means "doing something illegal". However, the term itself is generally reserved for the context of a proffessional setting, like a doctor performs an operation with the intent to induce harm. So neither of these terms really apply in this sence, and unfortunately, while "common law" is there to protect the rights of all citizens in all places, it is only a matter of Criminal Law. The case of a parking lot fender-bender is hardly criminal. In fact, the criminal law only stipulates that licensed persons opperating motor vehicles in the public realm must adhere to the stipulations of the DoT/DMV. The jurisdiction of these two agencies only extends to the public realm, which is why one cannot be ticketed for operating an unregisterred vehicle on his own property.

The case of damage to one's property by an act of another falls under the genre of Civil Law. While operating your own property in the public realm, i.e. anything that is owned by the collective public, and your property is damaged you may have a claim against the public. If you can prove that you did nothing wrong, than the public is responsible for the damage done to your property. However, the public can also send that liability vicariously to the one that damaged your property by proving they acted irrationally. That's why representatives of the public (police officers) show up to take a report and determine liability. However, if it is not in the public realm, then you have to look to the private party.

It is indeed true the police cannot determine fault on private property, it is out of their jurisdiction. You can talk to Wal-Mart, however, because if Wal-Mart invites you to their store and you park your property within their standards for doing so, you can have a claim against them for the value of your property, and then they will go after the party that was truly negligent. That's why they have cameras in their parking lots. You get a video of the accident, and then you can directly sue the motorist for causing the damage to your property, in which they will have to claim insurance to pay for it.

Okay, I'm done rambling.

shur

Rydicule - based on your "rambling" (this is what you called it) you obviously have more knowledge about legal issues than I and I appreciate that.

However, I still stick by what I said originally, that "O[o]ne is always liable for a misfeasance." Although, mis(mal)feasance invariably apply in many "professional setting," the term can be and is used in other tort setting as well.

In Herron (71 Cal. App. 3d 673, 7) the court stated that "A[a]lso stated at section 6.8, page 191 of the California Continuing Education of [***7] the Bar publication is the following: "The 'double liability' setoff could also apply to a wrongful death claim. If a rider's death is caused by the combined misfeasance of his host driver and the driver of an uninsured vehicle, the amount recoverable by his heirs for wrongful death under the uninsured motorist provisions of the host's policy is subject to reduction by the amount the heirs are entitled to recover from the host under his general liability coverage."

In addition, Webster's dictionary defines misfesance as "the performance of a lawful action in an illegal or improper manner."

I tried private messaging you, however, I am a noob and do not have the right yet. If you want to talk about this further, email me. .

Mxdout97, give us more facts and I am confident we (more likely than not Rydicule) can help you.

HTH
Scott.

White Shadow

iTrader: (11)

This type of situation is a part of what I do every day for a living. You most likely are screwed. An accident like this that happens on private property is not subject to state or local traffic laws as it did not occur on public roadways; you were lucky to evern get police to respond to a parking lot fender bender. Vandalism or intention criminal destruction of property is a completely different scenario. this was an accident, even if the other party was reckless or negligent as your friend claims. If you doubt what I'm telling you, call and ask to speak to the duty sargeant of your local police department.

Here are your options: 1) Each party pays for their own damages and goes on their way. This is the easiest scanario and what will most likely happen. 2) You try to file a claim with your insurance. You will have to pay whatever your deductible is and it will count as an accident where you are at fault as far as your insurance carrier is concerned. 3) You retain an attorney and file suit against WalMart's property liability insurance. They will most likely settle the claim for a modest amount and pay you but by the time the lawyer takes his cut you won't recoup enough to cover your actual damages. 4) You make your friend pay you for the damages that happened to your car while it was in his care like he should if he is a responsible person.

Hope this helps.

Rydicule

I'll concede. I can read it that way, and it does make sense. Nicely said.

MxdOut97

iTrader: (1)

just talked to the insurance co.

they said the driver in my car will not have to pay anything through their insurance. basically right now they are trying to find who is at fault and then that party's insurance will have to pay for the damages. the drivers' stories are conflicting right now, but the agent said that my story is move believable so its looking pretty good right now that ill get reimbursed for the damages to my car.

reeloop

iTrader: (3)

I'm in IL, and I had someone drive into my car backwards... even after holding the horn for a 3 seconds. officers came, made a report, his insurance paid 3 grand for the damage.


I say haunt him down through your insurance agency,

max671

If you have witnesses that will go a long way. My car got rear-ended in a parking lot but the other driver assumed responsibility so I got her insurance company to pay for the repairs. Police don't really give a damn about accidents on private property unless there's an injury or criminal element (think about that whenever you get a carfax...what accidents happened that there's no police report on). Anyway, someone is definitely at fault in an accident, and they should have to pay for it. If there is some kind of statute saying no fault then that's bs.

Rogo02SE

Just FYI any parking lot in CT with more than 10 spots is subject to state traffic laws and statues. It it includes handicapped parking enforcement, firelane enforcement, speeding ect. This means that police must investigate all incidents. This does not mean that once accident is investigated the cop must find someone at fault.
If cop interviews both parties involved and their stories are: "the other guy is at fault" then the cop will just submit an accident report with statements from both parties.
Pm me the accident report narrative and I'll give you an idea of who might be at fault.