Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Has it occurred to you that the testimony of the poster and her husband is evidence and is proof?
The car was in the total control of the hotel while the OP went about business as intended. The OP doesn't have to prove how the damage occurred. What she has to prove is that the damage occurred while the car was in their possession.
Stop and think about what you just said for a moment. The business created a contractual relationship based on the notion that you have to pay to park in their parking lot. Than it wants to assert its not responsible when the article in their care is damaged? Gee, just what did the business agree to do ? Why does this business provide a valet to park the vehicle if it won't take responsibility for this sort of damage?
Look up the legal term "bailment" and read the description through carefully.
Further, there is a legal doctrine in negligence cases known as "res ipsa loquitur" or the thing speaks for itself. A party is entitled to prove negligence in a case by showing that (1) an instrument was solely in the hands of the defendant (2) injury occurred while it was in the hands of the defendant; and (3) the only way injury could have occurred is by negligence.
A video would be very helpful, obviously, if it depicted damage. However, the hotel may not provide it and one of the problems with Small Claims Court is that you don't get 'discovery" which is something you would get in an ordinary civil case filed by an attorney.
I'm saying that the video isn't essential. What is essential is that believable testimony be presented about the condition of the car before it was left with the parking garage and that the OP be able to also say authoritatively under oath that the car could not have been damaged after she took possession of it again. One of the problems I have with videotaped evidence is simply the fact that now that this technology exists, some people expect everyone to be able to show it. We are a long ways from that point in life and we may never get there because cameras everywhere equals no privacy.
If that is the case, what other conclusion could be drawn than that the vehicle was damaged at the Hilton Garden Inn? It wasn't damaged by aliens from outer space.
One of the issues we are getting here is that of "level of proof". Some people apparently believe things need to be proven "absolutely". That isn't true and never has been true in civil court. What is required is "proof by a preponderance of evidence". In other words, the plaintiff's version of the case must be shown to be slightly more likely than not. I believe she has shown that based on what she has said.
The only thing that would change my mind, is if the car was out of her eyesight in any place where it could have been struck by another vehicle after they took possession of it from the garage.
Thats exactly what happened, they left the hotel and then came back 15 minutes later. This is why the hotel/valet company are not going to accept liability. The damages COULD have happened between the time it left and the time they came back.
Thats exactly what happened, they left the hotel and then came back 15 minutes later. This is why the hotel/valet company are not going to accept liability. The damages COULD have happened between the time it left and the time they came back.
You're missing the point--unless I heard the OP wrong. She and her husband were with the car the whole time after it left the garage.
Their testimony of this is evidence of the fact that nothing else happened. The testimony of the people bringing the suit is evidence.
None of this has to be proven to an absolute certainty.
It simply has to be shown to be more likely than not.
OP, I hate to tell you, but once you left the hotel and drove away, you absolved them of any wrong doing, in the absence of any video or witness testimony.
Long story short, I had a friend of mine with a Lotus Espirit that he valeted at a restaurant. Even though there WAS camera footage, it was unclear whether they had caused any damage because the valet driver backed into a spot, and never got out and looked at any damage. (There was damage to the rear bumper and decklid from either being rear ended, or backing into something.)
If the valet driver hit something when backing up, he either didn't know (unlikely in my opinion) or he knew there was a camera in the lot and that if he pretended nothing happened, he'd get away with it.
Once my friend picked the car up, he didn't walk around the car to see the damage, it was actually 2 days later before he noticed after he drove home and parked in the garage.
He ended up having to pay out of pocket, after taking them to small claims court to pay the deductible, he lost. There just wasn't any evidence that they caused the damage since he didn't notice when he took back the keys.
After this, I always walk around my cars that I valet before I drive away. It's the only way to protect yourself.
You're missing the point--unless I heard the OP wrong. She and her husband were with the car the whole time after it left the garage.
Their testimony of this is evidence of the fact that nothing else happened. The testimony of the people bringing the suit is evidence.
None of this has to be proven to an absolute certainty.
It simply has to be shown to be more likely than not.
So people don't lie? What makes the owners of the car any more trustworthy then the valet driver?
Judge to valet driver "Did you back this vehicle into something"?
Valet driver "no"
Judge to valet driver "Was there any damage on the vehicle when it left your lot"
Valet driver "no"
Judge to car owner "Was there any damage on your vehicle when you dropped it off at valet?"
Car owner "no"
Judge to car owner "Was there any damage on the vehicle when you picked it up"
Car owner "yes"
Judge to car owner "When did you discover the damage"
Car owner "When we were 10 minutes down the road"
Judge "Is it possible to damage happned after you left the hotel?"
Case Dismissed.
Last edited by Me007gold; 08-28-2013 at 07:51 AM..
I am so frustrated. Last week, my husband and I went to the Hilton Garden Inn in downtown Austin, and we checked our truck with the valet parking company (a subcontractor of the hotel, a private company). When we left the vehicle in their care, there was not a scratch on it. No, we didn't take photos of the vehicle when we dropped it off with the attendant - who does?
We left the truck there till about 10:15 the next morning. When the attendant brought it down, the pick up area is very dimly lit. The attendant stood between us and the rear view of the truck, and chatted away, starting with the line, "So...do you have a hard time maneuvering this big truck around in these narrow city streets?" My husband said, "Nope, never!" We got in the truck and drove about 2 miles down the road to my son's apartment complex.
We got out and as soon as we did so, my husband noticed a HUGE dent on the rear driver's side behind the tire. I mean - three feet by two feet probably. SIGNIFICANT damage. WE DID NOT DO THIS. It was NOT like that when we dropped the truck off. We did not have any incidents or wrecks or anything in the few minutes between picking up the truck and driving 2 miles to my son's apartment. This damage HAD to have happened while the truck was in the care of the valet company.
So we went straight back - we were gone less than fifteen minutes. The valet manager was very polite and friendly, and we filed a detailed report for their insurance company.
You guessed it - they turned it down. They said "they could find no evidence that they were responsible for that damage." They said, "We recommend that you contact your insurance company."
We have a $1000 deductible. The estimates are for between $1900 and $2000 to fix it. Not only that, this would be considered "our fault" since another vehicle was not, to our knowledge, involved, so our insurance premiums may go up.
I know what I am going to do next, but I would also like to hear your suggestions. We are so mad!!!! I doubt very seriously that we can "prove" anything in a court of law, but the thing that makes me madder than anything else is that basically they are accusing US of lying, when in fact someone in their company IS LYING. They are at fault whether we can prove it or not! I am not going to go gently into that good night!
That sucks, but unless you have proof, it's just your word against theirs.
The lesson to be learned here is that you don't let strangers drive your car, no matter how convenient it seems to not have to park it yourself!
So people don't lie? What makes the owners of the car any more trustworthy then the valet driver?
Judge to valet driver "Did you back this vehicle into something"?
Valet driver "no"
Judge to valet driver "Was there any damage on the vehicle when it left your lot"
Valet driver "no"
Judge to car owner "Was there any damage on your vehicle when you dropped it off at valet?"
Car owner "no"
Judge to car owner "Was there any damage on the vehicle when you picked it up"
Car owner "yes"
Judge to car owner "When did you discover the damage"
Car owner "When we were 10 minutes down the road"
Judge "Is it possible to damage happned after you left the hotel?"
Case Dismissed.
Its not that simple. Under a bailment theory, all that has to be proven is the vehicle was damaged while under the care of the parking garage. It would not be necessary to prove that a valet actually damaged it.
Under a negligence theory, its more tenuous. However, as I stated one can rely on res ipsa loquitur or "the thing speaks for itself. This doctrine allows a court to find for a plaintiff when something was in the exclusive control of a defendant and the damage could not have occurred, but for negligence. Under this doctrine, the court can find for the Plaintiff. It doesn't have too.
If it were me I would take the case to Small Claims Court for $30, make the business sweat and incur legal fees, and let the court decide what the law is.
Its not that simple. Under a bailment theory, all that has to be proven is the vehicle was damaged while under the care of the parking garage. It would not be necessary to prove that a valet actually damaged it.
Under a negligence theory, its more tenuous. However, as I stated one can rely on res ipsa loquitur or "the thing speaks for itself. This doctrine allows a court to find for a plaintiff when something was in the exclusive control of a defendant and the damage could not have occurred, but for negligence. Under this doctrine, the court can find for the Plaintiff. It doesn't have too.
If it were me I would take the case to Small Claims Court for $30, make the business sweat and incur legal fees, and let the court decide what the law is.
The only way to prove that would be if the damage was noticed before the vehicle left the property. Since they left the property it could be argued that it happened after they left
The only way to prove that would be if the damage was noticed before the vehicle left the property. Since they left the property it could be argued that it happened after they left
I suppose hypothetically, the vehicle could have been struck by meteor after it left he garage.
Argument is one thing. The testimony of the plaintiffs that the vehicle was not damaged after it left the garage would be sufficient to overcome this objection, unless they left the vehicle alone at some point after they left the garage. The OP has said that they were with the vehicle the whole time and came back 15 minutes later.
I really don't understand this argument that "they could have made it up". Its up to the court to determine witness reliability and proof. There is no rule that says you need a video to do that.
So people don't lie? What makes the owners of the car any more trustworthy then the valet driver?
Judge to valet driver "Did you back this vehicle into something"?
Valet driver "no"
Judge to valet driver "Was there any damage on the vehicle when it left your lot"
Valet driver "no"
Judge to car owner "Was there any damage on your vehicle when you dropped it off at valet?"
Car owner "no"
Judge to car owner "Was there any damage on the vehicle when you picked it up"
Car owner "yes"
Judge to car owner "When did you discover the damage"
Car owner "When we were 10 minutes down the road" Judge "Is it possible to damage happned after you left the hotel?"
Case Dismissed.
This is the key statement. From a legal standpoint, that is reasonable doubt that it was possible it happened before. The judge most likely would even ask why it was not noted before leaving. It wont be a easy win unless you can submit evidence that proves it happened while under the valets care.
I suppose hypothetically, the vehicle could have been struck by meteor after it left he garage.
Argument is one thing. The testimony of the plaintiffs that the vehicle was not damaged after it left the garage would be sufficient to overcome this objection, unless they left the vehicle alone at some point after they left the garage. The OP has said that they were with the vehicle the whole time and came back 15 minutes later.
I really don't understand this argument that "they could have made it up". Its up to the court to determine witness reliability and proof. There is no rule that says you need a video to do that.
OK, witness reliability, the valet company. They can show how many cars they move in a month, year, etc, damage free, right. That could go a long ways. Even better if they did have a claim that they paid for and admitted fault. The company could very well prove they are a reliable witness.
In fact, the valet company submitted a claim, and the claim got denied. So, the good faith is provided by the valet company but their insurance company denied it due to their investigation.
The proof is needed. Im not saying the OP is guilty at all, but I work in the insurance industry and you would be surprised to see what people will do to file a claim against damage they created.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
