RIP, Escort - The Final Chapter

[old_skul]

The backstory: The Cincinnati Police towed my car from its spot on the street in March 2001. I called them, they told me it had been impounded. I called the impound lot, they told me it had been sent to the junkyard and destroyed. Same day. No notification to me. The car was licensed, insured, and functional in every way. Granted, it was dirty, ugly and dented, but no more so than your average 1987 Escort beater.

The lawsuit: I sued the city for the value of the car ($1,200), plus some recent repairs ($800 in tires, brakes, tune up and miscellaneous), and $15/day loss of use. Total: About $7,700.

The hearing: My attorney proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the police had screwed up. The city brought in no less than three witnesses, all of whom contradicted each other, and I brought myself and my girlfriend to vouch that the car had been driven regularly and was not abandoned (the city's reason for the tow). The opposing counsel made her case based not on the city's actions, but on its immunity from having to pay damages.

The outcome: The case was lost. The judge cited a previous case in which the city was found to be immune from damages.

Summary: The city can do anything. There is no accountability. City Council can essentially run rampant, creating programs that are fraught with error and pitfalls, and in the end, the citizenship has to pay the price when the implementation falls through and people are wronged.

(To make this post on-topic, I'll mention that my 911 stays parked in the driveway - never on the street.)

So that's it, folks. Keep in mind what you're responsible for - not just your property, but for securing it as well. Thanks for all the interest!

1987 Ford Escort 1986 - 2001 RIP

[pwd72s]

May we all learn to love big brother...he really cares for us all. Mark, sorry to hear of this outcome. Just because that judge has the right, it doesn't mean he was right...

[Planter91C2]

that is ridiculous. should have got johnny cochran on that one.

[Kurt B]

That's got to be the biggest crock of ***** I've ever heard...

It's such a crock, I'm speechless.

Somehow, the Judge's hands are tied in the matter. It sounds like he simply Has to declare the city immune, but what I'd like to know is what about the legislation makes it this way?

Attorneys? What's up with this crap?

[emcon5]

Now a Lawer I ain't, but this souds like a fairly clear cut violation of Amendment 5 of the US Constitution.

No person shall......be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Somebody explain what the due process was.

Tom

[Early_S_Man]

Not exactly a surprise, but further proof of the contrived state of our legal system ...

Now, Tom ... you should know better! The local, state, and Federal govt. has proven titme and time again that the current prevailing view amongst those elitists in power ... is that the Constitution doesn't apply any more ... after all, it was written a LONG time ago, and any Congressman will tell you -- off the record -- that the Constitution is open for interpretation by Congress JUST AS WELL AS THE COURTS! Anybody remember the 'Boland Ammentment?'

[Jgordon]

You know what might work.....

In NYC, and I believe elsewhere, every news station has some version of "The problem solvers," a team that makes its living by pursuing human interest stories, many times focusing on people who got ripped off either by unscrupulous business owners, or the city government. Basically they call attention to the mistreatment until the offending party does something about it.

I bet that if you contacted your local news station, they could put together a nice little piece on you and your car. Seems like just the kind of thing they go for.

I hate governmental stupidity, which unfortunately affects or comprises entirely most of its actions.

ps - If you succeed in winning the human interest slant, keep the porsche out of sight when they interview you.

[pwd72s]

Warren, please enlighten us on the Boland amendment? That the one that says the state has to give it's permission to be sued? Guys, this is what a liberal politican really means, when he speaks of the US Constitution as a "living document"...that he believes it should be interpreted in a manner to increase the power of Government. "As Government expands-liberty contracts." -President Reagan, farewell address, 11 January, 1989.

[Jim T]

I don't think your lawyer did a very good job. He should have been prepared for an immunity argument.

Cities don't have unlimited immunity. That is ridiculous. Cities get sued all the time, and lose all the time, because of their wrongdoings.

Was your attorney prepared for an immunity argument, and did he have an argument in response as to why your case falls outside of the limited governmental immunity? Did he even try?

[nostatic]

What did your insurance company say? Seems to me this is a bit of a "total", and they should have paided out to you...then *they* could sue the city.

[Oldporsche]

Oh Yeah?

Fresh lawyer, move down one.

The city doesn't enjoy immunity. That's a crock. Our local community offered a local car dealer $3.3M for for the family owned land which happened to locate their auto dealership. They put up a fuss and went to condemnation. They were awarded $2.5M. They appealed to state supreme ct and got a new trial.

You don't have to take it that far. A good lawyer that knows where some skeletons are in City Hall can take you a long ways.
Seek and you shall find, along with enough for the lawyer.

Good luck,
David Duffield

[pbs911]

I don't know about Ohio, but in California, liability against a governmental agency must be based on statute. If there is no statute, there is no liability. Public entities are shrouded by a cloak of "discretion" and legislative enactment and may not be sued for exercising their discretion, whther it damages someone or not. And unlike people, public entities are not liable for the tortious conduct of their empployees, again unless specifically prescribed by statute. Find a statute that requires the government to compensate citizens for the taking of cars and you have a case. However, there would still be a problem with The the police discretion to have the car towed because it was abandoned.

Generally, the public entity is liable only for deliberate actions, such as entering into a breaking a contract, failing pay to wages to its employess, etc. While the govt can be sued for the "taking" of property, this is mostly limited to real property (land).

It is irrelevent that your attorney showed that the police were negligent, unskilled, or not properly supervised. I have demonstrated to the court that a public entity had engaged in out right fraud, but no liability based on immunity.

Go to the legal library and look up the vehicle code on condemned vehicles. There may be a provision requiring compensation for getting gross poluters off the road by confiscation. Generally, unless he deals in these issues all the time, the judge only has the law sited by counsel to decide an issue. It sounds like the govt provided the judge the law, you needed to find a statute that allows recovery. I would look in the liabrary and file an appeal. It ain't over till its over. If you want you can send it to me by email or fax and I could help you proceed by your self. Sorry, but I can't access the law in Ohio from hear for less than $7.00 a minute and I would get reemed by the boss if I did.

This is not intended as legal advise, just a little insite into public entity immunity and some ways to establish liability.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by pbs911


This is not intended as legal advise

This is how you tell a real lawyer from a "Sears" lawyer (obscure Frank reference)...the disclaimer.

[Moses]

In the old days, with "citizen lawmakers" you might have had a judge with enough balls to say, "to hell with legal precedent, this just ain't right."

I wish you had the time and or energy for an appeal.

Maybe you should call the local newsstation. It's a simple story. Easy to understand. It would make a great feature. If you can't get any money out of the city, make the bastards sweat! Embarrass them.

[pwd72s]

HOOT! I LOVE the press angle...couldn't you just see it? The judge, ambushed by Suzie Shallow of the local liberal views, cameraman running tape. "Your Honor, Judge Smith, do you have a comment about...? Ohhh, a delicious mental image is this!

[bell]

i would definately go the media route, being that the case is "over" you shouldn't run into any contempt charges. i've seen local stations here in akron/cleveland work wonders when it comes to citezens getting screwed. it may be your best bet to get some restitution. i don't understand why the car was destroyed the day it was impounded, i seem to remember a law reading where you have at least 30 days to take car of an impounded auto reguardless of why it was impounded, i don't remember where, but years ago i had something similar happen when i was on vacation (but the car wasn't destroyed) because someone said it was abandoned but was in a secure lot AND was permitted to be there by the owner of the land (another resident called the police and they didn't check with the landlord).
it sounds like you are in the right on this one, don't lay down your cards yet. if it was a municipality who you tried to sue you may be able to take it to county. i would speak to another attorney then to the media. sorry for the long post........
and this is my .02

[JonSeigel]

It's the politicians that are to blame and not the judge. Here's the story. Most of our law is derived from the British common law. Under the common law, the King (i.e. the government) was immune from lawsuits ("it's good to be the King"). This was carried over to all U.S. jurisidictions.

In the early 1960s, the California Supreme Court threw out the concept of governmental immunity for California governmental entities and stated: "we cannot believe this doctrine made it across the Atlantic" (I'm paraphrasing here, but am not too far off). The State Legislture *immediately* passed "emergency" legislation that effectively overran the Supreme Court's ruling and reimposed governmental immunity, with only limited exceptions. pbs911s post above has this exactly right. The exceptions were chosen by the the Legislature and they are self-serving, inconsistent and unfair. It's all about politics. Therefore, just because you can sue the government for one thing doesn't mean you can sue it for something else. "Bend over baby, we can take your property without compensation." The judge must follow this law.

Most jurisdictions follow this same concept of general immunity with limited exceptions. Your lawyer should have known that the government would claim immunity and brought that possibility to your attention before you spent time and money on pursuing the case.

Sorry about this long and depressing post.

Jon

'93 C2 coupe

[Early_S_Man]

Paul ... remember the Iran-Contra hearings testimony of Lt. Col. Oliver North ...

The Bolland Amendment was the blatantly unconstitutional attempt (some have called it anti-Constitutional) by Tip O'Neil's Congress to conduct foreign policy, resulting in the Iran-Contra Affair ... by prohibiting military expenditures for activities in Nicaragua.

[pwd72s]

Warren, thanks for the reminder. BTW, if it weren't for Ollie and his commander in chief? We wouldn't be enjoying fine stogies from Nicaragua today!

[old_skul]

The appeal would literally cost more than the value of the car. However, I'm open to suggestions. It's not that I don't have the time - I just don't have like $1000 to pony up.

If you're interested in the case for real, here's a couple of things:

http://www.courtclerk.org/aps/ttl/lns/docketimage004.asp?/Seerot/STATN018\05439621.tif

That's a link to the judge's decision, in TIF or PDF format. To further clarify, it looks like the judge made it clear that the city had somehow "proven" that the car was "junk", although testimony in the case didn't exactly have me convinced that the city had done its due diligence in determining that.

Wanna see all the documents? http://www.courtclerk.org/aps/ttl/lns/caseimage.asp?01CV16978 is the page with all of 'em. It's interesting pretty much only to me, because I'm involved directly.

I've tried the media route, of course - our local paper pretty much sides with the Republican right and the local government. There's not much chance, but I'll look into it.

Of course - if the fine members of this board would like to make donations to appeal this case - I'll make my Paypal addy available. But to appeal, I have to challenge a statement made by the judge. Pretty much all I have to go off of at this point is the statement that the car was junk.

Everyone, thanks for your input. It's at least good to know that my fellow man agrees.