Caltrans denies CA man's claim for falling debris on bridge, tells him to report before it happens
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 พ.ค. 2024
- Fremont resident Marco Vailetti filed a claim with Caltrans after a chunk of concrete fell and shattered his windshield on the Richmond-San Rafael bridge. Caltrans denied the claim, and told him he had to report the falling debris before it causes damage. abc7ne.ws/3STVRiX
#caltrans #consumer #california #investigative #abc7news
We investigated ourselves, and found ourselves not liable. Have a nice day!
when court rulings are filed against gov agencies or officials, the gov should not be allowed to oversee the investigation (conflict of interest). it should require a non-gov entity to handle teh investigation and court proceedings.
@@SoloRenegade this is the same if you have a claim against a business or individual. It is often required that you must first make a demand for payment or restitution prior to filing a lawsuit. For example, if I say that something fell off the back of a truck and damaged my car I am required to make a claim against the truck owner before I can file a lawsuit in an attempt to recover payment for damages.
Before you sue a government agency the claimant is generally required first to pursue an "Administrative Remedy." In this case the complainant did not make a compelling case that CalTrans was legally responsible, negligent or reckless in the allegation that a piece of concrete had fallen off the bridge. I'm not suggesting that the state does not bear responsibility for the incident; I'm stating that the claimant did not offer any evidence (at least not in this news report version of the incident) that the state is responsible for whatever it was that caused the windshield to break.
@@noyopacific that's a reasonable argument.
Exactly
ya no shit total wacked out thats why i will never live in that state wont even visit
The government seldom holds itself accountable.
By seldom you mean never...
Costco told me the same thing after their tire center didn't tighten my lug nuts correctly TWICE causing them to loosen and my wheels to almost fall completely off two times while driving. They wouldn't even pay $50 to another shop to check the wheels' balance. They basically told me there's nothing I can do about it.
@@Nayr747 haha, Walmart did that to me. Except my wheel did come out... interesting to watch your rear tire go past you 🤣 it was Walmart so I didnt even try to get them to fix it. I just never went to Walmart automotive again. I go to small local shops now, better people and quality.
America the country of no accountability.
It's up to the public to do that.
Wait- PRIOR NOTICE? How can you know BEFORE you car gets hit with debris???
The utter NONSENSE!!! Mind boggling.
Use time travel, duh....
What they mean by this is prior complaint(s) or report(s) to the city. The city is liable only if they are informed of a problem and they don't take prompt action to rectify it. If they don't know about the problem, they don't know to address it. (Of course, bridges require periodic maintenance inspections, so, if they didn't perform an inspection as required, they could be held responsible for that reason, too.) It's like with potholes: if the city isn't notified that a pothole exists, they don't know to fix it. Pro Tip: if you notice a pothole or other hazard, notify the city - even if your vehicle wasn't damaged - don't just blow it off... then anyone subsequently suffering damage from that hazard is more likely to be compensated (and the city then gets the opportunity to promptly fix the problem).
It's obviously his fault for not using a crystal ball before getting on the bridge. 😮
@@popcorn5130 almost all bridges in America are behind on inspections. Only the really big popular ones like the golden gate and Hudson bridge are checked regularly. The vast majority are ignored. Its still wrong to say they aren't responsible if it's never happened to someone else first. That's ridiculous, use that same logic elsewhere. It falls apart.
He should take them to small claims court. The worst that could happen is he just loses the filing fee.
Its probably a stall tactic since most people will take the hit and move on & not take them to court to win.
What a screwed up State!
@@guyfawkesuThe1It's like that everywhere.
State owned. You need permission from the state to sue the state.
he'll loses work time , filing fee .. personal time , not worth it
They always deny all claims. They are counting on your inability to pursue the matter in court.
Yep, lots of insurance companies follow the same process. Deny most, knowing that a small percentage will protest.
It would seem that way indeed. The person leaving the message on the answering machine was obviously aware that he was serving BS, to the point he was unable to clarify the position, so either he did not understand the requirement himself, or he did not believe in it. either way, the only goal was to deny the claim no matter what.
The person who left the message knew his answer was full of it. How can you warn them in advance of falling debris that's going to hit your car? And of course waiting to respond to his claim until after the deadline for any kind of appeal to be filed.
Just get a police report and file lawsuit
CalTrans is a danger to our roadways.... all they do is tear up the roads and create more traffic and dangerous driving conditions.
What if the man was KILLED by the falling piece of the bridge? Would Caltrans reject the claim because only the dead man could legally file a claim?
Usually, when such a story goes out on the main stream media, the guilty party pays up instantly. I guess Caltrans doesn't feel that it owes anything
to any Californian.
If that was the case I would make a deal with the devil so I can come back and make the claim. They'll probably refused because I had assistance from the devil.
They would need prior notice of fatalities occurring under the same condition in order to substantiate that claim.
Correct they need to take care of the homeless and criminals first!
@@kyruslarocque5225 Perhaps the victim could demonstrate a reconstruction of the incident using one of the Caltrans employees.
@@mikeifyouplease I would be fine with my tax money being spent in that manner👍
And some people wonder why lawyers are needed. Caltrans' response is ridiculous.
Actually it's probably lawyers for CALTRANS who told them they can deny the claim because there is no evidence. Does caltrans have cameras spaced out on the bridge too prove it wasnt their debree? wait , caltrans assumes you are lying and demand you prove it. Lawyers are the root of many problems in our country today. Hope i dont get sued for saying that lol.
The ONLY reason lawyers are needed is because the legal system is made to be inaccessible by the average citizen. Justice - if you can afford it.
Wonder what would happen if someone gets killed. Not liable ?????
@@PeterHernandez-lg2eh If they estimate that they can get away with denying liability, they absolutely will.
It is called accident for a reason, if there is a prior notice, then it is no longer accident.
I almost died in 1998 on the I-80 Emeryville exit. There was a massive pothole with rebar protruding. The rebar caught the tire of the car I was in and rolled us across all 5 lanes of 80. It was horrible. Caltrans just shrugged their shoulds and said whoops we didnt see that. Took em almost a year to fix it.
That's crazy. Glad you are alive.
Hope you got a nice check out of that near death experience... Glad to still have you around
Hence I dodge all potholes, even the sewer manhole covers. Depending on your speed, depth of pothole, etc. it could potentially damage your bearings, alignment, suspension, etc. I've seen driver who just plow through the potholes, like Uber/Lyft drivers. Their vehicles are all beat up.
@NoMoreIllegal5 I wasn't the driver. I was in the back passenger seat.
A pothole of that *mandates* an emergency repair, and who gives that the city's budget can't fix it right this instant? It would be better to fix that before someone actually gets killed, as that then would cost 100x plus more than the repair bill to have fixed the pothole
He should tell his doctor about how he can barely drive now out of fear of falling debris, get a diagnosis, and find a lawyer that will sue for 100x the original claim.
What diagnosis would a doctor give him? concretefallophobia? It's this inventing of fears just for the sake of a kick back, that is ruining this country.
if hes been driving this whole time and just now says he cant because of fear, and it was found to be a false claim, he would therefore be committing fraud. but yes, i agree that he needs to get a lawyer to persue this matter to have his payout all repairs that were done to his caused by this incident, plus court fees, etc.
@@Sunriru there is a difference between can't and barely so where is the fraud?
@@Sunriru If it happens once, it is an accident. But it seems that this city doesn't care about fixing anything. Who knows how many other people has similar run ins but never reported them.
"Prior notice of falling debris"... Wtf?? So if something happens once, they're not liable??? Isn't that the whole meaning of an "accident?"
What they mean is that there has to have been a prior notice that there is something wrong that could lead to falling debris. The logic here is that if they don't know that it needs to be fixed they're not liable for any damages. I mean that's completely crazy and stupid but that's the logic.
@@magisworthsnaklepass5183so, we have to do their job to inspect their structures and make sure nothing is damaged? I thought we pay taxes for them to do the maintenance.
@@pytube777 Yeah, it's nuts. Citizens aren't actually expected to do bridge inspections but it seems like a disincentive for the state to report problems when a bridge is inspected if the state become liable for damage when they aren't if the problem isn't reported.
Now you have the picture. Just like a computer glitch, if it only happens once......................it never really happened.
I think thhe word you're looking for is "unprecedented"
People need to start launching class action lawsuits suits against government agencies, for accountability.
Class action? So, everyone with damages gets a couple of bucks or a coupon?
I wonder how many vehicle crash deaths from CalTrans road construction work and incompetency?
@@rupertmiller9690 it's about sending a message.
The state doesn't care
They care about criminals
Not about legal and law abiding citizens anyway. They LOVE illegals, minorities and the criminal class
@@GEORGE_W_BUSH_DADDYPreach it man. They literally treat criminals better than tax paying citizens
'merica, where reality and satire become one
when court rulings are filed against gov agencies or officials, the gov should not be allowed to oversee the investigation (conflict of interest). it should require a non-gov entity to handle teh investigation and court proceedings.
caltrans friends with pge too?
no.. try again
They all are. Greedy and selfish.
both are friends with Newsom tho.
@@tamehamehaprints3604wealthy, like-minded powerful, individuals that control the state of California aren't all Buddies? If that's true then there's something wrong there too 😂😂😂
Caltrans damages property with negligence while PG&E kills thousands with negligence. Caltrans needs to step their game up if they wanna hang with PG&E
We took every case denied and filed it in court. It would have tied them up in court for years. They settled.
That’s why I have a dash cam!! They can’t dispute that
You wanna bet ??... 🙄😂
They never denied that it happened. They're just denying that they're liable. Facts tend to mean nothing when you're dealing with the government.
Better have a camera on all angles.
Did you pay any attention to the story? They aren’t denying that debris from their bridge hit the vehicle, they are saying they aren’t responsible because they didn’t have prior notification of a condition that could result in debris falling
@@valerierodger That's what they say. If he does go to small claims he should state how would the state get prior notification of an unsafe condition? It's not like pedestrians are walking up and down the bridge every day, inspecting everything above. If Caltrans really expects that, the bridge isn't even designed for pedestrians. People walking the span are probably trespassing.
Caltrans' denial / rejection of this man's claim is routine for them, since the law (Gov't Code) was written by lawmakers to favor themselves. The letter that he received from them is a standard 'form letter'. Caltrans, like many Gov't entities are playing a 'numbers game' by rejecting claims, because they're counting on you to either accept their b.s. or go away out of frustration.
Had this man's claim been handled reasonably, Caltrans and/or their T.P.A. (Third-Party Administrator) would've paid because of the legal doctrine 'res ipsa loquitor'. Also, Caltrans is negligent due to 'actual notice' or 'constructive notice' of their bridges deteriorating and debris falling. Incidents like this has happened before. Their lame excuse for not fulfilling their duty of maintenance is, there are so many bridges and miles to inspect. While this may be true and explains why they keep demanding a higher budget and federal support, this is a poor defense in a Court of Law.
The man has a newer model pick-up truck. Doesn't he have insurance (specifically Comprehensive Coverage) to file a claim with his own insurer? (He'd have to pay his deductible, but the stress reduction is worth it.) Then, his insurer will pursue a subrogation claim against Caltrans. If they succeed, his insurer will reimburse him.
Wow, you smarty, you actually answered the question. Thank you!
Wow😮seriously?! They need to be sued! Take them to court!
Honestly get a lawyer this needs to stop.
Just sue them.. they'd have to prove that they had NO prior notice for their claim -- the claimant doesn't have to have provided prior notice of the condition. Secondly, that's not even a defense.
Further, the Caltrans saying that they conducted the investigation AFTER the incident means that they didn't maintain properly.
i think someone here needs some experience in life. Just that simple, sue them? You would have thought the other 477 people would have thought of that simple brilliant plan lol Now let me take you out of candyland and tell you how life works; it´s not simple, nothing is. You sue them you have a few to pay, you also miss a day of work (more lost money), and there is no guarantee you will win. Insurance companies are not stupid. So, no, you need more logic and reasons to "just sue them" because in the adult world, things are more complicated than that ;)
@@north2green It is that simple. It's expensive, yes. You don't have to take the days off. You hire a LAWYER who also doesn't take the day off because it's their job.
Insurance companies are not stupid and that is why they will settle because the CLAIM from the phone-agent was what we call "Unconscionable" or a "shock to reasonable conscience". The cause for denial would be summarily rejected by any mediator OR judge.
It wouldn't even get to court. The filing would be enough.
@@PhrontDoorwell said
If you sue them, you are responsible for proving the chunk of concrete came from the bridge.
@@Golfnut_2099 That part would be trivial.
It's the same in Ohio. I drove over a 6 or 8 inch access cover for either gas or water in the right lane that had almost a four inch drop and about 6 inches around it deteriorated at 35mph and it destroyed two 18 inch rims and tires valued at $1800 at the time. I took pictures of the access port damage and the damage to my wheels and took them to the city and they entirely denied liability for the damages. Took it to state since the city was dragging it's feet, throwing me between ODOT and the county courts like they were playing football on a Friday. Needless to say, the state ended up forcing the city to reimburse me for my time as well as the damages. They ended up paying about $2300 after everything was said and done, it only came to that much since it took them almost a year to finally take action
But the .12 cents gas tax commercials showed the bridges falling down if it didn’t pass.
[cries that neglected infrastructure will collapse without more money]
[forces you to give them more money]
[continues to neglect the infrastructure knowing that they'll never be held liable when it collapses anyway]
@@HammyJamPants sounds like every democratic policy, yet people keep voting for more government control. what's California's debt now? 150 Billion, mind boggling.
That bridge has many areas where there have been patches in the concrete roadway. When you drive on it you can see where Caltrans has done repairs. They are always closing lanes on the lower deck at night, and they say they are doing roadwork when they are not. They are doing repairs at the current time on expansion joints. The entire bridge needs to be replaced, and they need more lanes. They also took a lane on the upper deck to put in a stupid bike lane. Even the CHP does not patrol the bridge due to it's hazardous conditions. There is no place to pull over on the upper deck if there is a problem. What they have here is a governmental agency refusing to acknowledge their problem for the deferred, and lack of maintenance on an old bridge that is some 70 years old. It needs to be replaced. When I drive it, you can see rust developing on the structural steel beams. I have also seen many areas where the concrete roadway has been patched. It is starting to crumble.
Caltrans has many "patch and pray" roadways and bridges.
Sounds like the bike lane was added as a way to surreptitiously lessen the load on the upper deck.
Take them to court before filing a claim!
Whoa man are you rAcIsT?
@@locklear308 Are you dumb?
I just went through this with my local city goverment here in SoCal, back in November there was a huge chunk of loose asphalt sitting flush in the road, I drove over it at about 30MPH and it was enough to cause the chunk to flip out of the hole and stick up straight in the hole, when my back tire went over it it shot my Subaru through the air and sideways where I almost lost control and ended up in the opposite lane, luckily it was almost 12AM so there was no other traffic. I stopped to take pictures, it bent my rim, damaged my tire and blew out both my rear shocks after bottoming out when it landed, I reported it the very next day and they wanted printed out pictures of the damage, the events to be hand written and estimates from 3 different shops to present to the city council. The damage was estimated at $3600 when averaged out between the three shops. At first they tried to tell me that because the pot hole wasn't reported before I hit it that they weren't liable and my insurance would require a deductible and a rate increase and then they told me that it actually WAS reported just the night before and sent me a counter offer of $300. It wasn't even enough to replace the rim and tire alone. I argued with them, they wanted me to BREAKDOWN THE SHOP CHARGES BY EVERY DOLLAR and I did! They told me they were only going to make one final offer and that if I still didn't think it was fair I could kick dirt or sue the city for damages! Their final offer was only $700 and I couldn't refute it. Unfortunately I've had to drive it with the spare with the alignment and shocks blown out all this time so it's already worn through the spare tire and the good tire on the other side so I have to get 2 new tires plus all of the suspension replaced! City officials are JOKES and CROOKS.
Why would he lie? Pay up CalTrans
Caltrans needs prior notice of lawsuits coming their way
Yeah, 'prior notice' to caltrans is what's called a bridge inspection, and they are negligent if they do not do that regularly and notify themselves of the results way before parts of a bridge fall off onto someone.
It makes me wonder how differently this would have gone if it had been a convertible that that landed on. Would they ever responded like that to the family of the driver?
I'm impressed, the man actually received a response from CalTrans. Never got a response on my claim.
Speak with an attorney
Caltrans: We investigated ourselves and found no liability.
Also.
Caltrans: We will also need to raise toll to help maintain infrastructure.
LOL, perfect government logic.
What’s orange and white and sleeps four comfortably.. A CalTrans truck!
“I’ve done my own investigation, and have found your investigation to be wrong, null and void, and that you owe me for the damage to my car, as well as the cost of my own investigation”.
They always deny claims the first time around. They're just testing you. Appeal or sue.
The claims approved were for their families only.
If a chunk of concrete falls off a private business’s building, they’re liable for the damages it causes. Irregardless of if they knew there was a risk of concrete falling off their building prior to it happening.
You’re right. But “irregardless” isn’t a real word. Just use “regardless”, that is a real word and it means the same thing.
@@Sashazur irregardless is not only a word but a word found in the dictionary. While I’d say that new words are made all the time, irregardless has been around for over a hundred years
@@bigbuilder10 technically any string of letters that is assigned a meaning is a word(although we generally like them to follow some rules....) irregardless is a word but seeing as it literally just means regardless, its kind of pointless. Adding letters to a word that already exists just to turn around and have the definition of the other word be its meaning seems kinda dumb, especially since it is labeled a non-regular word due to it not conforming to the proper grammatical rules, unlike its counterpart.
I think a judge would be persuaded. He doesn't have to file in small claims. He can hire an attorney and seek attorneys fees.
Unfortunately, this is how modern society works. Why would big organizations and corporations care about normal people like us with a bystander mentality? Unless you are important or famous with leverage to bring public attention.
How about pot holes? Damage rims and tires from their failure to patch those roads.
If he had died, the state would STILL deny liability because he didn’t give them prior notice 😳
Chocolate rain is my favvvvorite thanks a ton ❤
Most States operate on PRIOR NOTICE which means they have 24 hours after the FIRST complaint to rectify the issue.
Been there, done that.
lol, I love that he says “do I need prior authorization?”
This is a reason to cut gas and other taxes. If you’re not maintaining the roads and not going to pay out people who are affected by caltrans negligence then why are we paying high taxes at all. Just don’t pay it.
There’s no need to think… Small Claims Court is the answer, and calling them out on the news is another. 4% acceptance rate of responsibility isn’t right by any means.
Most people don’t understand the concept of “prior notice”. It’s like this: Imagine there is a hole in a sidewalk. You walk into the hole and break your leg. Now, if the hole was never reported by anyone prior to your accident then the city has not had a chance to learn about the hole much less do something about it. Once the city has been informed about the hole and then if they don’t do anything about it, then the city is liable. If you happen to break your leg in the hole that nobody else ever reported, then the city is not liable. Similarly with the bridge. If there have not been any prior notice to Caltrans of an area of spalls of concrete then they have not had a chance to do something about it. If you happen to be the first one to be affected by the falling concrete then there is no prior notice and therefore no liability. No negligence has occurred yet. It’s impossible to inspect every little square inch of such a large bridge. That’s why you have your insurance. Driving itself is hazardous that’s why there’s insurance .
This is a reason I will advocate for drivers to get a dash cam. You never will know when something will happen and an agency you are fighting with will keep saying you have no proof that it is their responsibility. There are many videos here on YT that prove that a Dashcam will make the claims process easier.
You didn’t pay much attention, did you? They aren’t denying the incident happened. They are saying it’s not their responsibility because they didn’t have prior notice of a condition that could cause debris to fall
I got rear ended by a LA city work truck so we pulled off of the freeway on an exit ramp. When the city worker lady that was driving got out, I noticed she had ankle weights on her ankles. The CHP officer interviewed them first, obviously, and wrote the report as un conclusive to who was at fault.
Long story short, the city of LA refused to pay so I took them to small claims court. It took 4 rescheduling attempts to get the city into court since the city kept making excuses on why the defendant was unable to make the court hearing. Finally went to court, myself and the city shared pictures and information before seeing the judge. Once in court , I showed the court my pictures of the damage to my truck and the judge looked at their pictures of my truck. The judge said to me, I photoshopped my pictures and because of that he was denying my case.
Before he dropped the gavel my reply was, how could I photoshop my pictures when their pictures are exactly the same and from the same angle, explain that. The judge got upset with me and said don’t speak out of turn. My lawyer, who was sitting in the audience stood up and also said there is no way the pictures are doctored and it’s clear by comparing the defendants pictures to mine. The judge said I see different and you (my lawyer) is not allowed to speak up in small claims. So I again I spoke up and said this is obviously corruption. The judge asked me to repeat what I said and told I him I plea the 5th.
Anytime you fight against a city, county, or state you will 96% of the time lose because all governments are corrupted, including the judiciary system.
In my case I was looking to get the city to pay $2,000 in damages.
After that I bought a front and rear camera and if you ever get into an accident, even a fender bender, do not drive to the shoulder, stop and get out when safe, and take video of the situation and damage, talking and describing what you see, along with the person that hit you. If I had done that, I would have won, but didn’t and the City of LA worker was able to lie in front of a judge and get away with it.
good advice; thanks for sharing your experience!
Thank you for this advice on what to do next time an accident happens.
No surprise here. I mean, we all saw how well the state "inspected and maintained" the Oroville Dam spillway...
Just sue them
I imagine what they are saying is that they don't find themselves at fault if they weren't aware that maintenance was needed. It would absolutely be neglagent if they were informed that maintenance was needed and they did nothing about it. So to that end, anyone could call in and report maintenance being needed prior to your incedent and it could be considered neglegence. That being said, I'm sure they ignore most or all of the calls they get, and even if they did get a call in saying they needed to do something there's no incentive for them to tell you they got a call in previously.
Imagine if they just conducted regular inspections and caught this sort of thing before it happened.....
That's complete BS. The guy should contact his local state representative and state senators as well as Newsom. The squeaky wheel gets the grease in this country.
CA has money to support frivolous programs but no money to fix damages caused by poor infrastructure maintenance.
You're talking about Democrats here... They wouldn't do anything.
They all Democrats! You think they going help him. You gotta be illegal before you get help...
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
The bigger question for me is why are chunks of concrete falling off of bridges.
Northern States are the same way. Lots of pot holes but they do not fill them in!
Sounds like it's time for a class action suite again Caltrans
The Freeway had gravel on it due to construction. A rock kicked up and broke my windshield.
CalTrans paid for the windshield immediately with no questions asked.
I heard an anecdote not long ago that the city of Boston MA had a similar rule, damage caused by potholes was only covered if the pothole had previously been reported. If not they could reject your claim because they had no prior notice. A group of MIT students responded by outfitting a car with sensors to detect road conditions and drove it around town logging gps data of all potholes and mass reported them all.
Unaccountable bunch of slackers
What they mean by prior notice is there would need to be a known issue that they neglected to fix. But not doing inspections could be negligence too.
How could Caltrans pay? They've diverted all funds to the train to nowhere project.
They don't pay
The reason for the denial is you can’t sue the government.
And when you can and win, they just pass the cost to taxpayers, so they never learn anything.
You can sue the government
@@Z020852 Correct, employee unions will fight tooth and nail over any employee discipline on the matter. Banish unions for public servants and you'd see a complete turnaround in service.
when court rulings are filed against gov agencies or officials, the gov should not be allowed to oversee the investigation (conflict of interest). it should require a non-gov entity to handle teh investigation and court proceedings.
Take them to court. Also, start a class action for denied claims.
So if that bridge falls and the cars on it get destroyed theyre saying they didnt take appropriate steps to save lives.
2:05 So Caltrans now wants people to be psychics and report falling concrete before it falls and kills someone??!! LOL
The state of California has money 💰, But Caltarns has alot of money. They want the money for them safe the roads are so bad in California. S/B 880 from mission Blvd to 237 Calaveras on 3 4 5 lines have too many pot holes .🕳
That’s mowry exit towards Oakland from last decade never repaired
Just wait until the Hayward fault goes off, all those roads and bridges in the east bay will have severe damage. Forget about potholes, it'll take caltrans years to fix that damage!!!!!!!!! 👍
100% needs to take it to small claims court and request Judge Judy be the Judge on the case.
Many local residents should team up and submit claims for future debris falling on their cars 🎉
King Newsolini has trained his servants well. Dodging responsibility is a valuable skill in CA
It's not just CA or the government. It's companies too. Costco Tire did the same thing to me. No one cares in America.
Sounds about right in line with Californias current leadership style
This is like one person being the detective, prosecutor, defense, and judge all at the same time. What clowns.
If was an illegal, I think they would have covered it immediately
"We investigated ourselves and found ourselves to have done nothing wrong"
If a problem isn't reported then Cal Trans has no knowledge so they aren't negligent.
Maybe ABC7 would be kind enough to check to see if inspections are up to date or if a problem was known.
With lumps of concrete falling off the bridge I suspect no inspections. Travel at your own risk
What does this say about the condition of the upper bridge or the lower bridge for that matter?
He was supposed to telepathically know before the debris fell to report it? No one called them on that nonsense?
This state is doomed...... sums it up.
She's happy as a clam over other poeples misery. Must be votin blue across the board!
yea because donald trump would pay for this guy's wind shield
‘I’m sorry to say this state is doomed’ - the most true words ever.
Hire a lawyer, sue them for a new truck.
A person travels on the public road system "at thier own risk" being a defensive driver is a must! Especially in the corrupt failed Democrat controlled Charcoal State of California!
Democrat Utopia….
This needs to be taken to court
The victim needs to file a police report and sue the company.
All those whose claims have been denied should file a huge class action lawsuit against Caltrans for criminal negligence
I have to remember this case when the mail carrier slips on the ice on my walkway. It's nice to know that I no longer have to remove the ice until the carrier files a complaint in writing to me.
What is the "Warning" at the bottom half of the rejection letter?!
He should gather all the people that have been denied their claims and file a class action lawsuit against CalTrans.
It's absolutely astounding how negligent Caltrans District 4 (the district that manages the Bay Area's network of state-owned roads) really is. There are literally *thousands* of potholes and hundreds of failing overpass expansion joints that they simply refuse to take care of. Drive down Highway 24, especially the eastbound direction through Lafayette and you'll encounter the roller coaster of failing concrete expansion joints that will rattle your vehicle. Drive it westbound and hit those massively damaged expansion joints across all 5 lanes between Highway 24 and the Broadway Street exit. It's so aggravating. It's been that way for years now, and District 4 simply refuses to do something about it.
I don't encounter the same issues when driving in District 11 (San Diego and Imperial Counties) or District 12 (San Diego) territories. This come down to management and a deprioritization of routine maintenance within District 4.
Why the hell anyone would live in California blows my mind.
You have a small mind...
Well there goes the validity of their “”Emergency” response” 😂😂😂
Class action lawsuit needs to be explored here! Every claimant needs to meet and discuss their options.
Sounds like they are saying they are only responsible if a condition is reported, and they do not repair it in a timely manner. Then, if an incidence occurs, they may be held liable.
I had something similar with the city of San Diego and their risk mgmt, my parents house was a rental at the time, the city replaced the aging sewer line in the alley. The contractor disconnected the house from the old line and did not reattach to the new line. I had to have a private plumbing company come out discover the issue, they were required to rebuild the broken section and put a pipe upwards, so the city could view the issue with a camera.
The city had their own crew on a Sunday tear up the alley and connect the house.
So I filled with the city risk mgmt, it took weeks for a reply, eventually I was told it’s not their fault I need to sue their contractor for my losses over 2,000. The contractor eventually said your home is not on the plans from the city their issue, city risk mgmt, replied I took to long and I need to file in superior court. Unfortunately I had accepted a transfer with my employer and moved 1,200 miles away.
Bottom line cities counties states, allow their risk mgmt to drag their feet and you end up with little to no time file in small claims and to go to superior court you need a lawyer now.
Same thing in Cedarburg, WI. 2 vehicles in a row had destroyed tires by a huge pothole that you couldn't see at night (right at a corner where you turn) and they refused to do anything about it saying no one complained about it first 😑
All governmental agencies deny liability. @TCcd5sm you are correct. The next step is to file an action through the appropriate agency.
Imagine working a mediocre paying job at Caltrans that entails sacrificing morality and scamming your community… crazy how a few people up top can keep the cogs turning like that
Definitely take them to court!
How are you suppose to have prior knowledge that state property is about to damage your property, does the bridge send you a memo stating you are up next to be damaged?
Absolutely UNBELIEVABLE
He should absolutely take them to court