Jump to content


sequenci

Spilt nails on road = two punctured tyres

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3640 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

My other half drove over a pile of nails on the road (no way they could be avoided). This has resulted in her car requiring two new tyres. Do you think we can hold the local authority accountable or shall I put it down to experience and fork out the money for replacements.

 

My gut feeling is to simply pay up but I thought I woulkd put it to you guys.

 

We haven't got any photographic evidence although we do have proof that we had to get the AA out. Twice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say its the local authorities responsibility unless they were aware of such a problem and didn't act on it. You generally need to have a loss, negligence and a link between the two to hold someone accountable.

 

Looking from their perspective (and a courts) it would be easy for someone to chuck nails on the road themselves to get free tyres


Ex-Retail Manager who is happy to offer helpful advise in many consumer problems based on my retail experience. Any advise I do offer is my opinion and how I understand the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Blitz is right, unless you could show that the local authority were aware of the nails and failed to clear them, you wont have much luck.

 

There is an interesting case where a lady slipped on some liquid in a Tesco store. Tesco stated that they went to great lengths to insure their floors were clean and this incident was 'unavoidable'. However, the lady visited the same store and saw another spillage.

 

She monitored the spill, and found that no one went to clean it.... she took her findings to the court who, based on this 'evidence' allowed her claim for damages... despite no proof there was negligence on Tesco's behalf in the first incident.

 

There is also a doctrine of res ipsa, which (in basic terms) allows the claimant to use circumstantial evidence to prove that there was a duty and breach.

 

For example, i am walking near scaffolding and a tool falls on my head, i do not have to prove that there was a negligent act - i only have to point out that tools don't usually fall from the sky therefore someone must have been negligent.

 

In theory, you could argue... but its probably easier to nip down to kwik fit...!!


Warning: Freemen of the Land Operate here. Think twice before accepting 'legal advice'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In theory, you could argue... but its probably easier to nip down to kwik fit...!!

 

I think you're right!

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

although try writing to them asking you may be suprised i know our local council ussually caves rather than risk court


Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...