Brickbat: Passing the Buck

The New York City government is refusing to reimburse Adam and Elizabeth Rizer for the loss of their car, which was totaled during a police chase. An officer was pursuing a suspected stolen vehicle when the officer's vehicle, with its lights flashing, T-boned a Hertz rental car in an intersection. That car then collided with the Rizers' Jeep, which was parked outside their apartment. The entire incident, including the collision, was caught on video. Police reports note that the police vehicle struck the Rizers' vehicle, but the city comptroller's office insists the vehicle that was T-boned actually struck their car and referred the couple to Hertz for possible compensation.

Comments

[Adans smith]

Sorry, I’m not paying, I’m done here.

[Fist of Etiquette]

NYC might have paid if only the couple had thought to be migrants.

[Kyol]

I am not a lawyer, but I thought that this was pretty standard procedure: If I rear-end you at a red light because some asshole rear-ends ME while I was at a full stop, you sue me for any damage/injuries that my car directly caused, and I sue the asshole who hit me for damages/injuries done to in addition to the money I had to pay you.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Seems to me the criminal in the stolen car is at fault for everything, assuming a legitimate pursuit such as a kidnapper or hit and run driver. Chasing for refusal to pull over for a broken taillight is on the cops, since the chase doesn't have any chance of preventing harm. Having to sue indirectly like that is a typical waste of judicial resources.

[Think It Through]

Well usually the criminal wouldn't have insurance or the ability to pay, so laying off all on him instead of Hertz (which would) or the municipality (which would) or the Hertz renter (who might) leaves the Jeep owner shit out of luck.

If we're just going by fault only:
Most at fault: Criminal
2nd: Police, depending on how they conducted the chase
3rd: Hertz driver, depending on how/why they were in the intersection
Fourth: Jeep owner, zero fault unless there was something causal about how they parked (say, in the middle of the road)
Fifth/Zero: Hertz, renting cars isn't negligent

[MatthewSlyfield]

"Fourth: Jeep owner, zero fault unless there was something causal about how they parked (say, in the middle of the road)"

I'm in Wisconsin. My understanding of Wisconsin law on this, is that if something like this happened in Wisconsin. The Jeep owner would be considered 10% at fault even if parked legally.

[Incunabulum]

IMO, if your property is destroyed by the cops in the pursuit of a criminal then the state should re-imburse you. We should all be fine with that - as not doing so imposes undue burdens from the CJS onto innocent individuals when its a collective good we're benefitting from.

Ie, since it benefits me if car thieves are routinely apprehended then I should be willing to pay a little bit to recompense someone who's been injured by the police in the pursuit of that since I am, in a way, a teeny bit responsible for sending the police out to do this.

[defaultdotxbe]

I was involved in exactly the sort of accident you describe, and my insurance told me the asshole (or rather his insurance) is directly responsible for damage to both cars.

[Illocust]

Yeah, I'm not seeing the issue with the city refusing to pay directly here. Hertz will compensate these guys and the city will compensate Hertz. That's just how traffic laws work.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

Same other then Hertz getting compensated by NYC. The Hertz driver seems to have failed to yield to the officer with his sirens on. Herztz insurance will would probably garnish the prison wages of theif if thats still a thing in NY.

[Rossami]

The principle you're talking about is called subrogation. It's an option but courts don't really like it because it adds unnecessary cost, effort and complexity to the case without materially changing the outcome. Yeah, it's allowed - and it's a dick move to insist on it when you know you're going to have to pay eventually either way.

[Incunabulum]

Not from my experience.

That happened to me - I filed claim against the asshole who pushed the guy in to me.

[John F. Carr]

The city is saying "so sue me". Standard legal tactic if there is no penalty for refusing to settle.

My insurance policy would pay for my car and be responsible for suing anybody who needed to be sued. If the liable party ends up immune from suit or judgment-proof the insurance company eats the loss.

[AT]

Yea, that's how it works. Because that's how it should work.

What's the issue here exactly?