X-post: Pothole: 1; GS-D3: 0; UVA-Law-S4-driver: 1; VDOT: 1; Hapless property developer: 0
09-19-2005, 02:12 PM
#1
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
X-post: Pothole: 1; GS-D3: 0; UVA-Law-S4-driver: 1; VDOT: 1; Hapless property developer: 0
In the matter of S4-driving law student v. the Virginia Dept. of Transportation (hereinafter VDOT), the parties are pleased to announce that they have settled a tort claim for damages in the amount of $493.38 arising from an unreasonably dangerous pothole on the Fairfax Dr. exit from I-66 East.
The settlement allows VDOT to admit no wrongdoing by shifting the liability to JBG Inc., a property developer erecting an office building adjacent to the pothole. Although JBG's liability is speculative and VDOT has ultimate responsibility for the roadway, JBG has acceded to VDOT's efforts to PIITB to them (VDOT withheld JBG's work permit until they agreed to settle the claim).
Damages incurred included one flattened Goodyear GS-D3 tire. At the same time, driver-claimant also noticed damage to the CV-boot while changing the flat tire. Although the proximate cause of the CV-boot damage could not be determinatively attributed to the road hazard, defendant has nonetheless agreed to pay for that as well.
Should S4-driving-future-lawyer get tired of corporate law practice, he kindly asks the members of this forum to keep him in mind for representation for all of their road hazard claims.
Exhibit #4 (of 8) in this matter:
<img src="http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ew2j/DCP_0088.jpg">
The settlement allows VDOT to admit no wrongdoing by shifting the liability to JBG Inc., a property developer erecting an office building adjacent to the pothole. Although JBG's liability is speculative and VDOT has ultimate responsibility for the roadway, JBG has acceded to VDOT's efforts to PIITB to them (VDOT withheld JBG's work permit until they agreed to settle the claim).
Damages incurred included one flattened Goodyear GS-D3 tire. At the same time, driver-claimant also noticed damage to the CV-boot while changing the flat tire. Although the proximate cause of the CV-boot damage could not be determinatively attributed to the road hazard, defendant has nonetheless agreed to pay for that as well.
Should S4-driving-future-lawyer get tired of corporate law practice, he kindly asks the members of this forum to keep him in mind for representation for all of their road hazard claims.
Exhibit #4 (of 8) in this matter:
<img src="http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ew2j/DCP_0088.jpg">
09-19-2005, 02:36 PM
#3
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's great! I always avoided driving through there because of that pothole.
There had been potholes there for two years when I started driving by. One was so deep after a snow last year that it looked like you'd hit the bottom of your car before the tire would bottom out.
Congrats.
Congrats.
09-19-2005, 03:59 PM
#7
You mean.....
"heretowith, in regards to the foresaid clunking suspension, reprimands and punishments shall be dealt to the aforementioned mechanic responsible for said repairs, ad hoc, per diem, via con dios". LOL.
