political sign damage on interstate

Would like some opinions on this incident. A political sign left over
from a local campaign was abandoned and punctured my fuel tank on an
interstate highway. Basic information on this incident at :

http://groups.google.com/group/mcdow...ronology?hl=en

Am I spinning my wheels, or does the political campaign actually have
some responsibilty for damages? Minor deductable costs but was more
the point of the possible recovery of damages. Any opinions?

On Feb 3, 11:47�am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 07:28:04 -0800 (PST), "
>
> > wrote:
> >Would like some opinions on this incident. A political sign left over
> >from a local campaign was abandoned and punctured my fuel tank on an
> >interstate highway. Basic information on this incident at :
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/mcdow...ar/web/general...
>
> > Am I spinning my wheels, or does the political campaign actually have
> >some responsibilty for damages? Minor deductable costs but was more
> >the point of the possible recovery of damages. Any opinions?
>
> My opinion is that this is a highly-elaborate troll. You went to a
> heck of a lot of effort to set up that web site to support your
> ridiculous complaint. However, the Mother of All Elaborate Trolls is
> still CalQaeda.
>
> That, BTW, is the *only* category where calrog.com actually does beat
> all the competition.
> --
> Please don't give financial rewards to trolls -
> DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com"

This is real and not troll. It might be trivial to some and really
expected the group would be to temporarily transfer pictures.

You dont like the complaint? dont respond.

On Feb 3, 4:58�pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 10:59:22 -0800 (PST), "
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Feb 3, 11:47?am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 07:28:04 -0800 (PST), "
>
> >> > Am I spinning my wheels, or does the political campaign actually have
> >> >some responsibilty for damages? Any opinions?
>
> >> My opinion is that this is a highly-elaborate troll. You went to a
> >> heck of a lot of effort to set up that web site to support your
> >> ridiculous complaint. However, the Mother of All Elaborate Trolls is
> >> still CalQaeda.
>
> >> That, BTW, is the *only* category where calrog.com actually does beat
> >> all the competition.
>
> >This is real and not troll. It might be trivial to some and really
> >expected the group would be to temporarily transfer pictures.
>
> >You dont like the complaint? dont respond.
>
> If you don't like my opinion, then don't ask for it, dumbass.
> --
> Please don't give financial rewards to trolls -
> DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey ****head! I just asked this group for an opinion. Not a big deal
it would seem. You did not offer one and just acted like an arrogant
asshole.

On Feb 3, 8:20 pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:31:59 -0800, Scott in SoCal
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 15:08:25 -0800 (PST), "
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Feb 3, 4:58?pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 10:59:22 -0800 (PST), "
>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >On Feb 3, 11:47?am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> >>> >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 07:28:04 -0800 (PST), "
>
> >>> >> > Am I spinning my wheels, or does the political campaign actually have
> >>> >> >some responsibilty for damages? Any opinions?
>
> >>> >> My opinion is that this is a highly-elaborate troll.
>
> >>> >This is real and not troll. It might be trivial to some and really
> >>> >expected the group would be to temporarily transfer pictures.
>
> >>> >You dont like the complaint? dont respond.
>
> >>> If you don't like my opinion, then don't ask for it, dumbass.
>
> >>Hey ****head! I just asked this group for an opinion.
>
> >And you got one. You just didn't like it.
>
> >>You did not offer one
>
> >Sure I did. Go back and re-read the line quoted above that begins with
> >"My opinion is..."
>
> >However, since you didn't like my original opinion, I have another
> >opinion for you: you're an incompetent **** driver who ran over a
> >piece of easily-avoidable road debris and damaged his own car. An
> >opinion that, I suspect, is shared by just about everyone else here.
>
> Not shared by me. Most localities have laws that require political
> signs be removed within XX days of the election. I think this would
> be a good case for small claims court; too many of the candidates fail
> to clean up their mess, esp those who lose the election.

That doesn't imply that folks in cars have no responsibility to avoid
debris in the road.

If the candidate didn't put the sign there, then he isn't responsible
for damages.

E.P.

On Feb 3, 6:31*pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 15:08:25 -0800 (PST), "
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Feb 3, 4:58?pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 10:59:22 -0800 (PST), "
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >On Feb 3, 11:47?am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 07:28:04 -0800 (PST), "
>
> >> >> > Am I spinning my wheels, or does the political campaign actually have
> >> >> >some responsibilty for damages? Any opinions?
>
> >> >> My opinion is that this is a highly-elaborate troll.
>
> >> >This is real and not troll. It might be trivial to some and really
> >> >expected the group would be to temporarily transfer pictures.
>
> >> >You dont like the complaint? dont respond.
>
> >> If you don't like my opinion, then don't ask for it, dumbass.
>
> >Hey ****head! I just asked this group for an opinion.
>
> And you got one. You just didn't like it.
>
> >You did not offer one
>
> Sure I did. Go back and re-read the line quoted above that begins with
> "My opinion is..."
>
> However, since you didn't like my original opinion, I have another
> opinion for you: you're an incompetent **** driver who ran over a
> piece of easily-avoidable road debris and damaged his own car. An
> opinion that, I suspect, is shared by just about everyone else here.
> --
> Please don't give financial rewards to trolls -
> DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

x2

On Feb 3, 9:28 am, " > wrote:
> Would like some opinions on this incident. A political sign left over
> from a local campaign was abandoned and punctured my fuel tank on an
> interstate highway. Basic information on this incident at :
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/mcdow...ar/web/general...
>
> Am I spinning my wheels, or does the political campaign actually have
> some responsibilty for damages? Minor deductable costs but was more
> the point of the possible recovery of damages. Any opinions?

Yeah; spinning your wheels. Go to the local government's council or
board or whatever and ask for your $100. Take earplugs if you don't
want to hear the laughter.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Not a lawyer on TV ...)

On Feb 3, 9:28*am, " > wrote:
> Would like some opinions on this incident. A political sign left over
> from a local campaign was abandoned and punctured my fuel tank on an
> interstate highway. Basic information on this incident at :
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/mcdow...ar/web/general...
>
> *Am I spinning my wheels, or does the political campaign actually have
> some responsibilty for damages? Minor deductable costs but was more
> the point of the possible recovery of damages. Any opinions?

A political sign remnant would be no different than other debris on
the highway, which should usually be reasonable avoidable to contact
on the road. That's why you'd carry comprehensive insurance. Any
court action to expect results other than what is normally expected on
a comp claim would be treated as a potential candidate for a Stella
Award (named for the litigant in the infamous McD's coffee case).

It would be equivalent to suing DNR for deer in the highway.

On Feb 4, 7:22�pm, MLOM > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 9:28�am, " > wrote:
>
> > Would like some opinions on this incident. A political sign left over
> > from a local campaign was abandoned and punctured my fuel tank on an
> > interstate highway. Basic information on this incident at :
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/mcdow...ar/web/general...
>
> > �Am I spinning my wheels, or does the political campaign actually have
> > some responsibilty for damages? Minor deductable costs but was more
> > the point of the possible recovery of damages. Any opinions?
>
> A political sign remnant would be no different than other debris on
> the highway, which should usually be reasonable avoidable to contact
> on the road. �That's why you'd carry comprehensive insurance. �Any
> court action to expect results other than what is normally expected on
> a comp claim would be treated as a potential candidate for a Stella
> Award (named for the litigant in the infamous McD's coffee case).
>
> It would be equivalent to suing DNR for deer in the highway.

Well put as is the advise in several other groups. Thanks.

On Feb 6, 9:25 pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 21:06:52 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Feb 3, 8:20 pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:31:59 -0800, Scott in SoCal
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 15:08:25 -0800 (PST), "
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >>On Feb 3, 4:58?pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> >> >>> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 10:59:22 -0800 (PST), "
>
> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >>> >On Feb 3, 11:47?am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> >> >>> >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 07:28:04 -0800 (PST), "
>
> >> >>> >> > Am I spinning my wheels, or does the political campaign actually have
> >> >>> >> >some responsibilty for damages? Any opinions?
>
> >> >>> >> My opinion is that this is a highly-elaborate troll.
>
> >> >>> >This is real and not troll. It might be trivial to some and really
> >> >>> >expected the group would be to temporarily transfer pictures.
>
> >> >>> >You dont like the complaint? dont respond.
>
> >> >>> If you don't like my opinion, then don't ask for it, dumbass.
>
> >> >>Hey ****head! I just asked this group for an opinion.
>
> >> >And you got one. You just didn't like it.
>
> >> >>You did not offer one
>
> >> >Sure I did. Go back and re-read the line quoted above that begins with
> >> >"My opinion is..."
>
> >> >However, since you didn't like my original opinion, I have another
> >> >opinion for you: you're an incompetent **** driver who ran over a
> >> >piece of easily-avoidable road debris and damaged his own car. An
> >> >opinion that, I suspect, is shared by just about everyone else here.
>
> >> Not shared by me. Most localities have laws that require political
> >> signs be removed within XX days of the election. I think this would
> >> be a good case for small claims court; too many of the candidates fail
> >> to clean up their mess, esp those who lose the election.
>
> >That doesn't imply that folks in cars have no responsibility to avoid
> >debris in the road.
>
> >If the candidate didn't put the sign there, then he isn't responsible
> >for damages.
>
> >E.P.
>
> The candidate is responsible for his signs. They aren't put there by
> non-partisan elves.

So, if a Trinitron falls off a truck and damages your car, you sue
Sony, right?

And it couldn't POSSIBLY be that a politcal opponent, or someone
favoring a political opponent plucked the sign out of the ground and
threw it into the road, right?

Is the candidate responsible for that?

E.P.

On Feb 6, 9:30 pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:22:48 -0800 (PST), MLOM >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 3, 9:28 am, " > wrote:
> >> Would like some opinions on this incident. A political sign left over
> >> from a local campaign was abandoned and punctured my fuel tank on an
> >> interstate highway. Basic information on this incident at :
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/mcdow...ar/web/general...
>
> >> Am I spinning my wheels, or does the political campaign actually have
> >> some responsibilty for damages? Minor deductable costs but was more
> >> the point of the possible recovery of damages. Any opinions?
>
> >A political sign remnant would be no different than other debris on
> >the highway, which should usually be reasonable avoidable to contact
> >on the road. That's why you'd carry comprehensive insurance. Any
> >court action to expect results other than what is normally expected on
> >a comp claim would be treated as a potential candidate for a Stella
> >Award (named for the litigant in the infamous McD's coffee case).
>
> >It would be equivalent to suing DNR for deer in the highway.
>
> If the deer was actually owned by someone, not just a wild deer, and
> depending on the state laws, a person who hit it might very well have
> an excellent case against the owner of the deer.
>
> The main reason you rarely can sue over debris on the highway is
> because you have no way to prove who is responsible for it being
> there. Most debris has no name tag attached.

And, in the case of this sign, you have no idea who put it there. Or
if the wind put it there.

Just because it has a name on it doesn't mean that person put it
there.

E.P.