5 ms·

> They also run the risk of being held personally liable if someone were to be injured by the pothole they attempted to fix. Are they suggesting that the city

> They also run the risk of being held personally liable if someone were to be injured by the pothole they attempted to fix. Are they suggesting that the city can be held liable when a pothole they _haven't_ fixed jacks up my car or its tires? I've not really heard of that working in practice. From Portland's own website [0]: > Most pothole claims are not paid. Yea, figures - I think I'll take my chances with the anarchist-repaired potholes. [0] https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bibs/article/629953 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bibs/article/629953

IAmEveryone 8y ago
It's simply "you touch it, you (might) own it". The same principle applies, for example, to first aid, which is why "Good Samaritan" laws exist shielding you from liability. I generally sympathise with your point of view, because I really don't know how you can actually make a pothole worse by attempting to fix it. But if someone can make such a case ("they fixed it with road-coloured cardboard paper and I didn't see the hole below"), then yeah, they are liable. The city is just giving advice in this case. If someone where to harmed by one of these fixed potholes, the lawsuit would be between that person and these "pothole vigilantes".
- ensignavenger 8y ago
  "I really don't know how you can actually make a pothole worse by attempting to fix it" You have clearly never lived in the town where I grew up :)
- schoen 8y ago
  > "you touch it, you (might) own it" Perhaps compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855.
- hermitdev 8y ago
  > I really don't know how you can actually make a pothole worse by attempting to fix it. My first thought would be using substandard or incorrect materials. Say, using concrete in an asphalt surface. You quasi cover this with your cardboard part of the comment. Perhaps an incorrect mix of aggregate to asphalt might have different thermal properties. If the pothole expanded more/faster than the surrounding material, it might make it a lot worse. Also, if your materials are not safe to drive on while setting (like my example, filling a hole with concrete). You'd also be endangering yourself and others while attempting such work as you'll be unsuitably marked and lanes won't be properly barricaded for your work.
BlackFly 8y ago
This was always the problem I had with the idea of having liability for cleaning the ice off the sidewalk in front of your house. The province/city/state isn't responsible if your car crashes because they didn't salt the road/bridge in time (or at all), so why is there a double standard?
- maxerickson 8y ago
  It's good to be the king. (that's literally where the double standard comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity )
chris_wot 8y ago
I was thinking the same thing. What's more dangerous, a pothole, or one that a bunch of amateurs temporarily patched? I say the pothole is far more dangerous.
klmr 8y ago
In the UK it’s relatively easy to claim compensation [1] and, as far as I’ve heard, this is usually paid out if the road damage had been reported previously. [1]: https://www.gov.uk/claim-for-damage-to-your-vehicle https://www.gov.uk/claim-for-damage-to-your-vehicle
xoa 8y ago
>Are they suggesting that the city can be held liable when a pothole they _haven't_ fixed jacks up my car or its tires? I've not really heard of that working in practice. I don't know about Portland or Oregon, since it's a state/city level issue I assume laws vary all over the USA there. However, in my state that is absolutely the case on state roads, not "liable" so much as "you can be reimbursed for documented damages up to some limit", and the process is a quite straightforward one that I've personally taken advantage of. A few years back I hit a fresh major pothole on a state highway (50 mph speed limit) and it destroyed tires on the passenger side, though at least I avoided serious damage to my shocks. I documented the tow, repair, and tire replacement cost, downloaded the state reimbursement form, and sent it all in. 3 weeks later the state sent me back a check for the $500-someodd it cost no questions asked. I suspect a lot of people don't know about such laws but from a brief glance they do seem reasonably widespread around the country, so it's always worth checking. Maybe another one of those many things that can work quite well and easily in your favor if you know about it, but that most people don't even know to take advantage of in the first place. Certainly didn't come up in driver's ed, I only learned about it while talking shop with other people volunteering to help a campaign for state office.
- korethr 8y ago
  An amusing thought: If a lot more people would start submitting claims though such laws, the cities/states would start getting more proactive in fixing damage to the roads, so as to limit the amount of legit claims they had to pay.
  - f2n 8y ago
    Or have the law changed.
    - darkerside 8y ago
      It would be out of character for the government to suddenly refuse an opportunity to grow
- gshulegaard 8y ago

IAmEveryone 8y ago

It's simply "you touch it, you (might) own it". The same principle applies, for example, to first aid, which is why "Good Samaritan" laws exist shielding you from liability. I generally sympathise with your point of view, because I really don't know how you can actually make a pothole worse by attempting to fix it. But if someone can make such a case ("they fixed it with road-coloured cardboard paper and I didn't see the hole below"), then yeah, they are liable. The city is just giving advice in this case. If someone where to harmed by one of these fixed potholes, the lawsuit would be between that person and these "pothole vigilantes".

ensignavenger 8y ago
"I really don't know how you can actually make a pothole worse by attempting to fix it" You have clearly never lived in the town where I grew up :)
schoen 8y ago
> "you touch it, you (might) own it" Perhaps compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855.
hermitdev 8y ago
> I really don't know how you can actually make a pothole worse by attempting to fix it. My first thought would be using substandard or incorrect materials. Say, using concrete in an asphalt surface. You quasi cover this with your cardboard part of the comment. Perhaps an incorrect mix of aggregate to asphalt might have different thermal properties. If the pothole expanded more/faster than the surrounding material, it might make it a lot worse. Also, if your materials are not safe to drive on while setting (like my example, filling a hole with concrete). You'd also be endangering yourself and others while attempting such work as you'll be unsuitably marked and lanes won't be properly barricaded for your work.

BlackFly 8y ago

This was always the problem I had with the idea of having liability for cleaning the ice off the sidewalk in front of your house. The province/city/state isn't responsible if your car crashes because they didn't salt the road/bridge in time (or at all), so why is there a double standard?

maxerickson 8y ago
It's good to be the king. (that's literally where the double standard comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity )

chris_wot 8y ago

I was thinking the same thing. What's more dangerous, a pothole, or one that a bunch of amateurs temporarily patched? I say the pothole is far more dangerous.

klmr 8y ago

In the UK it’s relatively easy to claim compensation [1] and, as far as I’ve heard, this is usually paid out if the road damage had been reported previously. [1]: https://www.gov.uk/claim-for-damage-to-your-vehicle https://www.gov.uk/claim-for-damage-to-your-vehicle

xoa 8y ago

>Are they suggesting that the city can be held liable when a pothole they _haven't_ fixed jacks up my car or its tires? I've not really heard of that working in practice. I don't know about Portland or Oregon, since it's a state/city level issue I assume laws vary all over the USA there. However, in my state that is absolutely the case on state roads, not "liable" so much as "you can be reimbursed for documented damages up to some limit", and the process is a quite straightforward one that I've personally taken advantage of. A few years back I hit a fresh major pothole on a state highway (50 mph speed limit) and it destroyed tires on the passenger side, though at least I avoided serious damage to my shocks. I documented the tow, repair, and tire replacement cost, downloaded the state reimbursement form, and sent it all in. 3 weeks later the state sent me back a check for the $500-someodd it cost no questions asked. I suspect a lot of people don't know about such laws but from a brief glance they do seem reasonably widespread around the country, so it's always worth checking. Maybe another one of those many things that can work quite well and easily in your favor if you know about it, but that most people don't even know to take advantage of in the first place. Certainly didn't come up in driver's ed, I only learned about it while talking shop with other people volunteering to help a campaign for state office.

korethr 8y ago
An amusing thought: If a lot more people would start submitting claims though such laws, the cities/states would start getting more proactive in fixing damage to the roads, so as to limit the amount of legit claims they had to pay.
- f2n 8y ago
  Or have the law changed.
  - darkerside 8y ago
    It would be out of character for the government to suddenly refuse an opportunity to grow
gshulegaard 8y ago