CHP Officers - Clarify CalTrans notes regarding CHP logs?

[Fizz]

The log is from the CHP San Diego dispatch center. The log number is reference to Log # 803 which was opened on 2-28-17. A Cal Trans road crew was provided the information on 3-1-17 at 0835 hours. It appears that Cal Trans had someone there at 1920 2-28-17 hours to fix/asses the issue.

You can request from CHP San Diego Dispatch the voice copy from either a civilian caller or when it was called in by an officer. It might take quite a while to get that voice copy.

Super helpful. Thank you.

[Spyder]

I have a reasonable and legal expectation that the government fixes problems with the roads proactively as well as when they're notified of an issue.

[IrishJoe3]

Exactly.

[Fizz]

Exactly.

Not exactly sure what your point is. Someone else's negligence causes damage to your person or property why wouldn't they owe you compensation?

[IrishJoe3]

I have a reasonable and legal expectation that the government fixes problems with the roads proactively as well as when they're notified of an issue.

None of which makes them responsible when you crash your car into something in or on the roadway. Hence your denied claim.

And you have a legal responsibility to drive with due regard to the roadway conditions.

Why did you not file a collision report with the CHP? (Who would have found you as at fault)

Why are you not handling this through your insurance? (Who would have found you as at fault).

I know we love to 'stick it to the man', but the more money paid to bad drivers is less that's spent fixing roads.

[Spyder]

Dangitt! Who put that redwood there? Someone should pay me for crashing in to it!!! Stupid redwood. It's only been there for 204 years. Someone should put a sign out or something, that says not to run in to it.

[IrishJoe3]

Not exactly sure what your point is. Someone else's negligence causes damage to your person or property why wouldn't they owe you compensation?

The only negligence proved is your own, as the driver.

If I fail to tie the refrigerator down in my truck, and it bounces out of my truck and lands on your hood, I am negligent and responsible for the damage.

If I fail to tie the refrigerator down and it bounces out and lands on the freeway, and is sitting there in the #3 lane when you come flying down the road and plow into it, the damage to your car is 100% your fault.

[Fizz]

None of which makes them responsible when you crash your car into something in or on the roadway. Hence your denied claim.

And you have a legal responsibility to drive with due regard to the roadway conditions.

Why did you not file a collision report with the CHP? (Who would have found you as at fault)

Why are you not handling this through your insurance? (Who would have found you as at fault).

I know we love to 'stick it to the man', but the more money paid to bad drivers is less that's spent fixing roads.

You're more than welcome to look at the case law and statutes on this. My claim was not denied because I had a duty as a driver to avoid the pothole. The letter from Caltrans said as much. They said they are not responsible because they did not know about the pothole. Why would Caltrans even mention this if I had a duty to avoid the altogether? However, per my research they did know about the pothole before the loss. So the claims officer is mistaken or failed to do his duties to investigate the claim in good faith.

I'm not claiming on my own insurance because it's below my deductible. Second of all I shouldn't be making my own insurance company pay a collision claim on something that is someone else's fault when recovery from the culpable party is possible.

At this point the only legal standing Caltrans might be able to use is that they were not afforded reasonable amount of time to fix the pothole. Reasonableness will be determined by small claims if necessary.

Seriously, do your own research. There are many instances where the city and state governments have been responsible for damages caused by potholes it's not a rare thing at all.

[IrishJoe3]

Haha good luck dude

[Fizz]

Haha good luck dude

Feel free to make a counter argument or backup your point with statute or precedent. Or are we arguing from the book of how things ought to be vs. how things are?

[IrishJoe3]

I made my argument. In what you described, you, as the negligent operator, are absolutely at fault for the damage to your vehicle.

I say that as a trained traffic collision investigator with, geez, probably thousands of collisions investigated ranging from pothole damage (yup, I've written reports on exactly your scenario) to multi-person fatalities.

But hey, I said my piece, it's not what you wanted to hear so you ignored it. No skin of my nose. Good luck!

[IrishJoe3]

Feel free to make a counter argument or backup your point with statute or precedent. Or are we arguing from the book of how things ought to be vs. how things are?

The relevant statute is 22350 VC.

No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

So, if you are driving at such a speed that you are unable to see or avoid a hazard on the roadway, then you are in violation of this section regardless of the posted speed.

In your case, this would be the PCF, or Primary Collision Factor, or the section you violated which resulted in the damage to your car.

[Fizz]

I made my argument. In what you described, you, as the negligent operator, are absolutely at fault for the damage to your vehicle.

I say that as a trained traffic collision investigator with, geez, probably thousands of collisions investigated ranging from pothole damage (yup, I've written reports on exactly your scenario) to multi-person fatalities.

But hey, I said my piece, it's not what you wanted to hear so you ignored it. No skin of my nose. Good luck!

And you as a trained Collision investigator with thousands of reports under your belt cannot cite a single law or precedent that says that an agency is not responsible for pothole damage?

I don't know how you can claim to have seen my scenario before when you don't know where the pothole was, time of day, the environment that the loss occurred in, etc.

You are a making an all encompassing argument that a city or state is never responsible for pothole damage and it's just not the case.

[Fizz]

The relevant statute is 22350 VC.



So, if you are driving at such a speed that you are unable to see or avoid a hazard on the roadway, then you are in violation of this section regardless of the posted speed.

In your case, this would be the PCF, or Primary Collision Factor, or the section you violated which resulted in the damage to your car.

It was 10 o'clock at night. The potholes in a blind turn on an offramp and even with direct illumination doesn't showcase it's depth. Regardless of the speed I was traveling the pothole was a risk because it was impossible to register as a threat due to the curvature of the road and change in elevation.

Do you agree that the state has an obligation to maintain and repair the freeway? If the state does have an obligation to repair and maintain the freeway what are the consequences if it does not?

[IrishJoe3]

You're right, I don't know time of day, location or environment. But those situations are included in 22350.

If there are additional factors that make the hazard harder to see, then the REASONABLE and PRUDENT speed is even less. There is no circumstances where a stationary hazard can be hit and the driver not be at fault based on this code.

I'm not an attorney, nor do I work for CalTrans or any city/county, so I have no idea on what their payout policy is. My job is to investigate traffic collisions and determine fault. Everything you have said indicates it's you.