CL Platano

In my eyes eventhough it may be in their language of certain aftermarket parts in their insurance documents, unless it's posted for a customer to see or that a valet told him of the disclaimer the valet company is 100% liable

psteng19

I think you are correct, and they (valet attorney's) would win the case.

Now the question is whether it makes more financial sense for them to battle this out in court or file a claim to their ins. co.

etane

What is the top speed of a TSX when put in first gear while in idle with the e-brake atleast partially engaged? I can't imagine it going over 10mph. Can it? And, 10mph shouldn't cause the type of damage it did. Could it?

And, I am not sure you want to drag this to court. The judge might determine your car to be a public safety hazard if indeed the remote start with car in gear can cause THIS type of damage.

myblacktsx

[QUOTE=etane]What is the top speed of a TSX when put in first gear while in idle with the e-brake atleast partially engaged? I can't imagine it going over 10mph. Can it? And, 10mph shouldn't cause the type of damage it did. Could it?

If the car was in the garage for a while, the engine would have been cold causing it to initially idle at a significantly higher rpm than the warm idle of ~750rpm. In the event the car actually started, it could have been going faster (and with more torque) than it would have normally in 1st gear at an idle speed of 750rpm. My .

Motohip

[QUOTE=myblacktsx]And once it gets momentum it can go pretty quick.

NightShredder

Small claims court is very informal and takes about 5 minutes. There is no judge, a magistrate presides and makes a decision in about 30 seconds. One party speaks then the other party speaks and finally it is over after a few questions from the magistrate (if he/she has any). They don't really get into to many details because of the back log of cases. This comes down to who was in possession of the car at time of damage. Here the valet would say that he was. Case closed. The last two and a half years working at a law firm has taught me that time is money and this case would take to much time (time=money) for the valet to fight anywhere other than small claims court. Small claims court because of the structure is not geared for the small guy to lose. It usually is a very commen sense type of decision. They damaged the car then they are responsible. All of the details about the starter are not going to be covered in a 5 minute trial.

NDLunchbox

Night Shredder - they could argue they did not know it was there, pressed a button on the keyfob in the dark with no expectation that it would start the car... of course they should have set the parking brake and that is the hole in their defense.

I would not recommend getting a lawyer, it will cost more than the damage is worth.

And the insurance company sure isn't going to get you one! Don't know where that came from. Your insurance would provide you with DEFENSE if you were sued.

Again, submit a claim to your insurance company and let them subrogate.

NDLunchbox

Actually, the Valet is a Bailee, he needs to exercise more than ordinary & reasonable care - it's pretty stringent. In most other situations, I would pin the blame 100% on him, but this remote starter on an MT deal is an extenuating circumstance... especially if they didn't know it was there.

NDLunchbox

Totally - I hate having to readjust my seat. I sometimes drive to work in NYC a lot of the guys in the lots around my office also have bad BO!

NightShredder

They could not use the "I didn't know" excuse. Any lawyer in their right mind would not even try because they would be laughed at. It is written law in this country that ignorance is not an excuse admissable in court. If one wasn't aware that their actions would cause harm and they still caused someone/something to get injured (damaged property) through their own actions they are still liable as far as the courts are concerned. It would be very hard to defend the valet's actions.

loxllxol

Well guys, talked to the insurance company today. I'll give it a few days to let the adjustor do some research and get everyone's statement.

The hot discussion in here is court trials. Before that even happens, I'd have to get passed the insurance adjustors. If they find the other party (valet) more than 50% at fault, the decision goes to me and I get my car fixed w/o a dime out of my pocket.

On aside, I don't get this whole point about 'what if the valet didn't know about the RS and activated it on accident'. Whether or not they were competent does not excuse the fact that they damaged the car.

Am I taking crazy pills here? Am I t he only one that expects their car back in exactly the same condition as it was left?

A valet service is very easy to run. You get the keys, and park it, keep it there, then get the car back to the owner. A trained monkey could do their job, yet we're arguing about the technicalities.

Vividi

Consulting a lawyer is your best bet. You will find exactly were you stand and how best to proceed. The Los Angeles County Bar Association has a lawyer referal service. I used it a couple of years ago and it costs $35 for the first hour (check made to the Bar Association not the lawyer). Check http://lris.lacba.org/vlris/index.cfm or call (213) 627-2727.

DJDZ

lox,

We are all pulling for you to come out of this in the best situation possible.
Understand, had the valet returned you car damaged and there was no remote starter issue to deal with (and no other known cause), it would be a simple and 100% blame to the valet. We are just saying that there is a possiblility (however small) that this issue can be raised in that the remote starter and not the valet's driving caused the initial damage based on the fact that they were not aware you had installed a remote starter in you car nor did you make them aware of it or disable it at the time you handed you keys to them .

But hey, it will most likely never get there. Like I said go through the subrogation process. The valet company will likely not contest your claim and will opt to pay your claim to make this go away.

Again. Good Luck!!

DJDZ

The argument that "Ignorance is not an excuse" only works if there is an established and written law on the books that you broke. If you are speeding and you were not aware of the posted speed limit, then your defense that you were not aware of the posted speed limit is not a valid defense. That I agree. This case (if it even were to go to small claims) has more to do with negligence and what actually caused the damange (Remote Start vs. bad valet driving) and who has the more credible story as to how the damage occured.

Ozzman

loxllxol, I hope things work out for you and you get paid, but I can't help thinking that you may have a hard time. Valet's should be expected to handle any car that is stock, but if you add features that change the usability and/or safety of the car, you probably should have warned them.
Just because it is in their possession doesn't release you of all liability. I know it's an extreme example, but what if a terrorist put a bomb in a car that is set to go off when someone adjusts the radio volume. Valet gets in, turns down the radio and BOOM! The valet driver wouldn't be responsible for setting off the bomb, the terrorist would. I know that example is way extreme, but the fact remains that installing anything that makes your car unsafe and not warning someone about it makes you partially responsible.

That all being said, I seriously hope their insurance decides its not worth the fight and you get your baby back and looking sweet.

I'm Batman

Lox, IMHO this is your fault. Did you put the RS on the car yourself? What brand of RS is it? BTW there is no foolproof way of using RS on a MT car. Please leave the monkeys out of the blame...

aznt1217

So... I am guessing there are no security cameras in the premesis? well anyway... bottom line: they had the car when it happened and they messed it up.

Zasker1

It should also be noted that reguardless of fault, the fact that there is a claim against your car will prevent you from taking advantage of various insurance discounts. I just switched to farmers and I could have gotten a 30% discount if I had a clean record. Howerver the week I bought my TSX, I was hit by an illegal immagrent with no insurance and no drivers licence. Eventhough it was ruled to be not my fault, it still goes on your record as a collision.
Just a point to ponder.

Another point as my agent put it, is if you crack your windshield, just pay cash, dont run a claim as this will hurt the discounts as well.

MarcusC

cconrad

I agree. In fact, I've always heard it quoted as "ignorance of the law is no excuse." As for ignorance generally, well, you often hear of the reasonable person test. What would a reasonable person, given the circumstances, have done/thought/known/expected?

cconrad

Yup. In fact, up here in Calgary, where the streets are covered in nasty rocks half the year (works better than salt if it's really cold), many people (including me) have simply deleted windshield coverage from their policies. Windshields here are almost considered a consumable, like brake pads. You just don't file a claim for one.

scheißterhöffer

Wasn't there a movie loosely based on this premise?

"I saw this in a movie about a bus that had to speed around a city, keeping its speed over 50, and if its speed changed,
it would explode! I think it was called, 'The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down."

Motohip

LOL, I'm gonna have to remember that one.

NightShredder

I don't think that you have much to worry about. I asked one of the lawyers I work with and he confirmed my thoughts. Considering a valet is in the business of parking cars He/she should know what a RS is and know how to operate it. It is not like this is some new prototype device installed only in your car. RS are common and available to the public which a valet services. Since you were not in or near the car when it was started and the valet was makes him 100% negligent in this crash. He was operating the car and not you. In addition he should not hit buttons on the key fob if he doesn't know how they function.


Well, hopefully this works out for you. Please let us know how it ends up.

Motohip

Does it say "start" on the button? What if he thought he was unlocking the car? And I sort of dissagree with you, NightShredder about him knowing what RS is and how it opperates because lolx's cars RS doesn't opperate like it should. And maybe the guy who parked it wasn't the same guy who was trying to retreive it.

Again, It really sucks that this happened but you should take partial responsibility for this. This is a huge safety issue people should not install these kinds of devises that could cause accidents. It was bound to happen. Lucky for you it wasn't you that accidently remote started it in gear because now you have someone else to blame. And I said this before, but you are very lucky no one was injured or killed because you DEFFINITELY would be at fault.

NightShredder

We can just agree to disagree. Lolx seems to operate the RS without running it into walls. How come a valet, someone who drives many cars every day, would operate it in such a way that would crash the car? Regardless, the car was being operated by the valet when it was damaged. Legally that is the only thing that matters. It might not sound fair to you but that is the way it is. As free citizens we have a certain amount of decisions that we make every day. Should I wear sneakers or shoes? Cereal or pancakes? Should I park this car or not? Use the key or the RS? All of these decisions have results that we ourselves are responsible for. You cannot blame someone else for your actions. It doesn't hold up.

The argument that cracks me up the most are people who sue McDonalds for making them fat when they ordered the food at ate it themselves.

GSI

Sorry about your car man. Thought I would chime in on this one. All reputable valet services are going to carry Garage Keepers Liability which cover vehicles in their care, custody and control.

Most GKL policies that I have encountered would pay the cost of your claim even though you bare partial liability. The reason comes down to cost to defend. The expense of defending your claim will be much greater than the cost of fixing your car. Good luck.

Howard911s

glad we were able to help. dont forget to call n tell the club managers too, cause it looks bad for the club

rpcmx

OK, after reading all posts in this thread, I feel like either I forgot how to read or I missed some things completely:

-Doesn't remote start require some sort of sequence of buttons to be pressed on the fob to work? Like not just unlock, but lock-unlock-unlock or something like that? Because if it does, the valet shouldn't have been pressing a zillion buttons for no reason. And if in fact the valet did know how to start via RS, it's his fault anyways, because he did it to himself. If he did not, it's *still* his fault for pressing so many damn buttons.

-And, by the same token, if the valet was IN the car at the time it happened (which I guess isn't likely, but hey, who the hell knows), shouldn't he have hit the brake? I guess this goes back to whether there were security cameras installed.

But anyways, as I see it, remote start or not, the valet should have been more careful... it's not his car! And therein lies the negligence...

Am I missing something?!?!
-rpc

loxllxol

All you of you have great insight! This whole thread pretty much tackled every possible legal angle for this whole situation. I've had to use valet several times a week for more than a year now. Some say it was bound to happen, but the valet should only use what is absolutely necessary to move the car from one spot to another.

As far as the remote start sequence, that's correct. You cannot RS the car by the press of only one button. On top of that, the two largest buttons are the LOCK and UNLOCK buttons.

The adjustor is going to estimate the damages tomorrow morning. I will keep everyone posted.

Again, thanks for everyone's insight!
-Dan

curls

AS I mentioned back on page 1 or 2: Does the RS have a lockout that REQUIRES you to do a song-and-dance before exiting the car, in order to RS the car the next time?

I know mine did and I was told by numerous installers that they would only install a RS into a MT car if they had this. It's built-in to the brain of the unit and required to operate it.

If you had this installed, and it didn't work, go after the insurance company of the installer as well!

~Eric

narci

I wasn't gonna post but....


A friend of mine, he's an installer, had his 90's civic hatchback valet parked. When it came time to get his car, the valet pressed the RS and the car hopped into the front window of the hotel. The hotel ended up footing the bill for the damages on his car.

loxllxol

As far as most honda/acuras are concerned, from what I know, there's no signal that's sent to the ECU which indicates the car is in any certain gear. The only signal it gets is vehicle speed over 3mph which differentiates from a car standing still to a moving vehicle.

I know on subarus there is an actual wire you can tap which sends a signal to the ECU when any gear is engaged.

What kind of car did you have eric?
-Dan

Asahi

I can't speak for the new (02+) ECUs such as in the TSX but the Honda/Acura ECU's of Old definitely do recognize what gear the car is in. Hondata software will actually display the gear you are in. Don't think this will help you much but thought I'd share.

MikeMa

Was your car perpendicularly parked in a space? If it was, then in theory, there's a very slim chance that what they said happened, happened.... the car pulls out of the space on its own, hits a cement island at significant enough speed to both destroy your rim AND, drag the frame across the island (since it looks like your car is lowered to lower than a typical island) AND drive the rear wheel over said island, then the car does a 90 degree turn and scrapes the wall?

Of course, I'm just speculating here, since I don't know the specifics of where your car was parked and the layout of the parking garage, but it just seems kinda weird?

Oh, and since I don't think anybody answered the question about having remote start in California, may I offer this possible explanation: Starting the A/C for a while before you get in and cook yourself? (ie. the opposite use than in cold climate, where you want the car to cook a bit before you get in)

curls

What the "safety feature" on my manual-tranny remote starter is is this:

It won't allow it to start unless you've set it up prior to turning it off the last time. The set-up ENSURES that the car isn't in gear. You basically put it in neutral, foot OFF OF BRAKE AND CLUTCH (both have switches, as you'd know), parking brake on (switch as well!), and then press the button on the remote. A few things flash and chime, you exit the car, lock the doors.

The car is still running. Then once the doors are closed, you press another button which turns the car off. Thus, car is off, tranny in neutral, parking brake on, and doors closed. If the alarm senses any door is opened, the car WILL NOT START with the remote-starter the next time you try to start it.

However, if the doors aren't opened, the brain assumes nothing put the car in gear (as doors were closed/locked), and this WILL allow a remote-start the next time (by overriding the clutch-pedal switch and essentially fooling the ECU into thinking the clutch is pushed in).

It sounds really complicated to use but takes mere seconds, and then I KNOW for sure that the car ain't gonna hit any walls, etc...

If your car did NOT have this kind of safety feature installed with the remote start, I am fairly sure that the INSTALL SHOP WILL BE PARTIALLY LIABLE FOR THIS DAMAGE. Unless you signed a waiver and/or were verbally informed, they cannot install a remote starter WITHOUT A SAFETY LIKE I DESCRIBED, and not be liable for it.

Cheers bud, and I hope this gets straightened out for ya.

~Eric

gmfreed

Eric, That is pretty much the way a clifford system would work. To my knowledge, clifford was or still is the only system on the market that has a manual feature built into their remote starts.

But all anyone has to do is put a toggle switch on the break wire of the remote start. So when you part by valet, you flip the switch, this will make the remote start system think the foot break is pressed in, not allowing the car to start. All viper remote start system come with this feature. Any installer that does not install that switch on ANY remote start, whether it is stick or auto, is a fool and not a good installer. Even if you have an automatic transmission you will still want a wat to turn off the remote start when taking the vehicle in for service.

Greg

TLOBLLC

Good luck on your case. I personally find the whole California courts system bewildering:

You can murder your exwife, have the murder weapon found on your property, her blood on your gloves and get aquitted, but still found liable for her wrongful death (Simpson).

You're on trial for the murder of your wife and are aquitted because your alibi was that you went back to the restaurant to retrieve your gun. (Blake).

You go on international TV, confess to sleeping with young boys and are aquitted for playing hide the salami with underage boymeat because you think you are Peter Pan(Jackson).

Its a sad day when you start admiring Saudi Arabia's justice system.

05_TSX_GP

I didn't have much insight to share... just best of luck again in getting the mess resolved!

joerockt

Any updates??

YOTH

It wasn't the courts...its those damned idiot prosecutors. If you can't make a slam dunk case of any of your examples and win it with one hand behind your back...!!! Crazy.