Car damage from gritter lorry Options

[Pezzy]

I just had my car resprayed two weeks ago so it was like new. On Thursday I passed a gritter lorry on the motorway that shot out what looked like pea sized grit hitting the front and side of my car. I'm now left with a lot of stone chips as a result.

What's the best way to proceed in making a claim against the council to pay for the damage?

[Advertisement]

[The Rookie]

Well it won’t be a council of it was the motorway, it would be the relevant national highways agency.

But to be honest the claim isn’t going to be going anywhere.

[Churchmouse]

Well it won’t be a council of it was the motorway, it would be the relevant national highways agency.

But to be honest the claim isn’t going to be going anywhere.

And you know this because...

--Churchmouse

[DancingDad]

Well it won’t be a council of it was the motorway, it would be the relevant national highways agency.

But to be honest the claim isn’t going to be going anywhere.

And you know this because...

--Churchmouse

While I tend to agree with Rookie, worth asking, don't ask, don't get.
But would need to prove their salt was wrong and capable of causing damage or that their operator was negligent in some respect.
Not as easy as that may seem, I've seen people tailgating gritters or overtaking at minimal speed differential...FFS, that is shotblasting the paint and self inflicted.
That will likely be their argument, plenty of warning signs and driver could have avoided.
Wash the car BTW, often what looks like chips are actually small deposits on the surface and will wash off.

[Redivi]

The Highways Agency might argue that the grit is perfectly safe and the OP's paint wasn't fully hardened

Worth returning to the sprayer and asking him to check it ?

[cp8759]

You need to show that Highways England was negligent in some way. It is reasonably foreseeable that if excessively large grains of salt are shot out of a gritting machine at high speed, property belonging to other road users might be damaged. It's not a claim that would be impossible to win, but it wouldn't be straightforward either.

[Pezzy]

Well it won’t be a council of it was the motorway, it would be the relevant national highways agency.

But to be honest the claim isn’t going to be going anywhere.

And you know this because...

--Churchmouse

While I tend to agree with Rookie, worth asking, don't ask, don't get.
But would need to prove their salt was wrong and capable of causing damage or that their operator was negligent in some respect.
Not as easy as that may seem, I've seen people tailgating gritters or overtaking at minimal speed differential...FFS, that is shotblasting the paint and self inflicted.
That will likely be their argument, plenty of warning signs and driver could have avoided.
Wash the car BTW, often what looks like chips are actually small deposits on the surface and will wash off.

I did see the warning signs although not sure what I could have done to avoid him as he was in the middle lane of a 3 lane motorway in rush hour traffic. Only way past is left or right of him and doing the speed of the rest of the traffic.

After washing my car the damage is far worse than I first thought. The bumper has a load of fresh stone chips all over and some small ones on my bonnet. Where the salt gets in it's bound to make it worse over time so I really don't see why they shouldn't be held responsible as I've just spent a load of money on getting my car pristine.

I've sent them an email and as expected they deny liability. I might have to let a judge decide if they really aren't liable as they claim.

[The Rookie]

You have two very big issues
1/ proving it was the gritting lorry that did the damage AND that they were somehow negligent
2/ if no other car was damaged it would suggest the issue wasn’t with the grittier but your paint.

That’s why I thought no it’s going nowhere, though I agree it’s worth trying.

[southpaw82]

You have two very big issues
1/ proving it was the gritting lorry that did the damage AND that they were somehow negligent
2/ if no other car was damaged it would suggest the issue wasn’t with the grittier but your paint.

That’s why I thought no it’s going nowhere, though I agree it’s worth trying.

What may well happen is that he may file his small claim, the defendant will realise it will cost them more to defend than pay out and settle. It’s one way in which the small claims track can be abused.

[The Rookie]

That’s also possible.....though as it sounds like a full respray is needed again, that’s probbaly more than the cost of defending.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 21:19

[southpaw82]

That’s also possible.....though as it sounds like a full respray is needed again, that’s probbaly more than the cost of defending.

How much is a respray and what is the cost of defending?

[cp8759]

You have two very big issues
1/ proving it was the gritting lorry that did the damage AND that they were somehow negligent
2/ if no other car was damaged it would suggest the issue wasn’t with the grittier but your paint.

That’s why I thought no it’s going nowhere, though I agree it’s worth trying.

What may well happen is that he may file his small claim, the defendant will realise it will cost them more to defend than pay out and settle. It’s one way in which the small claims track can be abused.

That's simply the nature of an individual litigating over modest sums with any sort of corporate entity. An individual can litigate in their own time, so the financial cost to them is minimal (court fees, stationery and so on), while a corporate entity can only act through its human agents who must be paid for their time, and human agents who are capable of dealing with litigation with at least some degree of competence tend to be rather expensive. I'm not taking a dig at lawyers here, a corporate entity may act through any duly authorised employee, who doesn't need to be legally qualified, but you probably wouldn't want someone on minimum wage either.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 22:15

[notmeatloaf]

Seems like an issue with the respray as much as the gritting lorry. One might reasonably expect car paint not to be damaged by a gritter.

I'm not sure how you know they were pea sized bits of salt, you must have better eye sight than me.

[The Rookie]

That’s also possible.....though as it sounds like a full respray is needed again, that’s probbaly more than the cost of defending.

How much is a respray and what is the cost of defending?

A full resray of a proper quality isn't going to give much change from £2000 and can be a lot more.

Public organisations tend to defend quite vigorously to try and deter others they think may 'try it on' while corporations tend to be more conservative in my (admittedly fairly limited) experience.

[DancingDad]

It is a fact that many "no win, no fee" firms work on a table of "damages".
Pitch a claim in just below the threshold when the council/school/hospital will dig in and fight it and chances are it will be paid with little fuss.
Purely because it is cheaper to settle then fight even a dubious claim.
It is part of the claims industry these days.
Little fuss will likely include going through the letter war, escalation and possibly a small claims action btw.

On this one, with new paint matching and blending should not be too bad so possibly does not need a full respray.
Depends on the original quality, get a quote(s) so you can quantify.

I did see the warning signs although not sure what I could have done to avoid him as he was in the middle lane of a 3 lane motorway in rush hour traffic. Only way past is left or right of him and doing the speed of the rest of the traffic.

Slow down outside of the danger zone, wait for a gap, overtake at a reasonable speed differential.
Nothing says you have to sit in a grit storm overtaking at 1mph speed differential.

[Pezzy]

On this one, with new paint matching and blending should not be too bad so possibly does not need a full respray.
Depends on the original quality, get a quote(s) so you can quantify.

I will be happy for just the front end to be redone.

I did see the warning signs although not sure what I could have done to avoid him as he was in the middle lane of a 3 lane motorway in rush hour traffic. Only way past is left or right of him and doing the speed of the rest of the traffic.

Slow down outside of the danger zone, wait for a gap, overtake at a reasonable speed differential.
Nothing says you have to sit in a grit storm overtaking at 1mph speed differential.

That is exactly what I did, however the force at which the grit flies out and hits the car is considerable. I'm not sure why they have to dispense the grit at a height where it hits up to your windscreen. And I can't believe that I'm the first person to have damage from this. I've passed gritters in the past and didn't have too big a problem with it as I already had stone chips on my bumper/bonnet, but this is a bitter pill to swallow straight after I've had the work done.

[southpaw82]

That’s also possible.....though as it sounds like a full respray is needed again, that’s probbaly more than the cost of defending.

How much is a respray and what is the cost of defending?

A full resray of a proper quality isn't going to give much change from £2000 and can be a lot more.

Public organisations tend to defend quite vigorously to try and deter others they think may 'try it on' while corporations tend to be more conservative in my (admittedly fairly limited) experience.

It’s unlikely to exceed the cost of defending then (at least in my neck of the woods).

[DancingDad]

….That is exactly what I did, however the force at which the grit flies out and hits the car is considerable. I'm not sure why they have to dispense the grit at a height where it hits up to your windscreen. And I can't believe that I'm the first person to have damage from this. I've passed gritters in the past and didn't have too big a problem with it as I already had stone chips on my bumper/bonnet, but this is a bitter pill to swallow straight after I've had the work done.

That is the sort of detail that makes your claim look more justified.
You took reasonable precautions to avoid damage but based on past experience, this lorry was chucking out grit at higher rates/height/amount/possibly larger size and that damage was a result of this.

[cp8759]

That’s also possible.....though as it sounds like a full respray is needed again, that’s probbaly more than the cost of defending.

How much is a respray and what is the cost of defending?

A full resray of a proper quality isn't going to give much change from £2000 and can be a lot more.

Public organisations tend to defend quite vigorously to try and deter others they think may 'try it on' while corporations tend to be more conservative in my (admittedly fairly limited) experience.

It’s unlikely to exceed the cost of defending then (at least in my neck of the woods).

Depends if they have salaried staff tasked with dealing with such matters, in which case the marginal cost of defending the claim would be minimal.

[southpaw82]

Depends if they have salaried staff tasked with dealing with such matters, in which case the marginal cost of defending the claim would be minimal.

Would HE use the GLS or is that all framed out anyway (if HE are the proper defendant)?