Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [LVNA90004] Potholes and who's to blame?

Expand Messages
  • Vincent Cox
    Kevin is right. The key statute is California Government Code 830-835.4. You will need to show they had had actual knowledge or constructive notice of
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 3 9:28 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Kevin is right. The key statute is California Government Code 830-835.4.



      You will need to show they had had "actual knowledge" or "constructive notice" of that condition.



      "Actual knowledge" is relatively clear (if not, read about it in that same Code), but "constructive knowledge" is a little murky. Section 835.2 (b) describes it as:



      A public entity had constructive notice of a dangerous

      condition within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 835 only

      if the plaintiff establishes that the condition had existed for such

      a period of time and was of such an obvious nature that the public

      entity, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the

      condition and its dangerous character. On the issue of due care,

      admissible evidence includes but is not limited to evidence as to:

      (1) Whether the existence of the condition and its dangerous

      character would have been discovered by an inspection system that was

      reasonably adequate (considering the practicability and cost of

      inspection weighed against the likelihood and magnitude of the

      potential danger to which failure to inspect would give rise) to

      inform the public entity whether the property was safe for the use or

      uses for which the public entity used or intended others to use the

      public property and for uses that the public entity actually knew

      others were making of the public property or adjacent property.

      (2) Whether the public entity maintained and operated such an

      inspection system with due care and did not discover the condition.



      Government entities are not cheerful about paying for things like this. Good luck.



      From: LVNA90004@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LVNA90004@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Landa
      Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 9:21 PM
      To: skoorbmj
      Cc: LVNA90004@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [LVNA90004] Potholes and who's to blame?





      You can call 311 and file a claim....they will give the details.

      It has to be in writing with supporting docs...

      They investigate it and if it meets certain criteria the city will pay...it takes about a year.

      Basically if the city knew about the pothole and didn't fix it they will have to pay for the repair.

      Good luck.

      On Apr 3, 2011, at 9:10 PM, "skoorbmj" <skoorbmj@... <mailto:skoorbmj%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

      > not sure if anyone can answer or help, but wanted to put it our there to the LVNA90004.
      >
      > 3 days ago, my wife was driving on Cahuenga (around the Ford Theater). The street had a huge/deep pothole that she could not avoid driving thru. I believe it has since been covered up.
      >
      > Unfortunately, the hole did some serious under carriage damage to her car and caused a huge bulge on the front tire (looks like it's gonna blow out soon).
      >
      > I'm happy that the city covered up the pothole, but there is no question I will be spending over $1000 to fix the car at this point.
      >
      > How does the city deal with this? Do insurance companies acknowledge that this a no-fault kind of situation?
      >
      > Any insight would be appreciated.
      >
      > thanks
      > josh
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.