Extra points for getting some dudes together dressed like CDOT to pound in the rebar, and you take pics.
“I took pics thinking maybe it was in prep to fix the damage. Was that not you guys?”
Printable View
Extra points for getting some dudes together dressed like CDOT to pound in the rebar, and you take pics.
“I took pics thinking maybe it was in prep to fix the damage. Was that not you guys?”
One could make some caltrops out of some 1/4 plate or 60d nails and they would hide in the grass rather well....
You could file a claim with your own insurance and have them go after CDOT, but I wouldn't advise that because 1) I have a feeling the culvert isn't covered and you don't want a claim for nothing, and 2) the subrogation people at your insurance company will be better at dealing with the state than you, but could still get shut down.
I wonder if a lawyer wouldn't be able to argue that case on your behalf, or just the threat of a lawyer might make them fix it. The cost of the lawyer has got to be way more than what you'd be owed though. I once had a claim where a guy in a road grader backed over the hood of a lady at a stop behind him and that got through to the state, I think, before it got taken off my desk and moved up the chain.
Media attention might be useful, better than property damage.
If you decide to replace yourself this video might be helpful.
https://youtu.be/15XJDmawbYU
Extra points for using rebar from the CDOT lab that tests it?Quote:
Originally Posted by CS1983
It's so they don't have to be liable for construction equipment doing damage, especially when they aren't operating directly on a roadway. If a State backhoe runs a red light and injures someone, chances are they will accept that claim despite the previous cited Act because the backhoe was using the streets within their intended purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
you can bet your bippy that if one of us common folk decided to get drunk and drive a tractor pulling a mower down the side of the road and we got pulled over by the police, the state would indeed consider a "tractor with a mower" attached as "motor vehicle".
Unbelievable that they are using that as an excuse to get out of taking care of their Fu@K up.
Steve can attest to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TRnCO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95qZtwJNjxk
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric P
Quote:
Originally Posted by CS1983
Just be very careful not to use anything that could become a "missile" that the mower could project out and hurt someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by 00tec
My folks have a huge area on both sides of their culvert that is "rip-rap'd" with stone. This serves to both reduce erosion and to ensure no mowers can get near the actual culvert. But then, the county performs mowing operations along their roadway, and they only go out from the edge of the gravel about 1 mower width. They perform these operations regularly - at least once every 5 years (or less).
CGIA is a fun act. Among many issues, the state can use it's insurance provisions to extend immunity to entities that don't otherwise have immunity, simply by arguing the insurance would obligate the treasury (taxpayers) if it had to pay a claim. Real circular logic. They also have strict 180 day notice requirements which have obviously passed, so I don't think you're own insurance company could argue squat even if they were motivated. Everyone seems to agree you're boned.
From my own time mowing, if you cut off a steel post near the ground, sometimes you'll go beyond the sacrificial pin and straight up bend the crankshaft. $%$#ing former homeowners apparently had a mailbox there. No shrapnel from that!