Backed into light pole already knocked down

[matthew6969]

Thank you all for your help! After reading up, I would be fighting a losing battle as it was my fault as well as the hotels. Really glad I found this site.

 

[mightymoose]

It's exactly the same. As "adjusterjack" indicated, "collision" is typically defined as the upset or rollover of a covered auto or its impact with another vehicle or object, and comprehensive covers damage to the covered auto other than as a result of a collision. "[H]itting an animal in the road" is the same thing as colliding with an animal is is covered under the collision portion of the policy.

No, that typically comes out of comprehensive and does not effect rates. Ultimately it's up to the insurance company as to how it will be covered. Personally, I see a fallen light pole very different from an upright stationary light post.

If this is covered by the insurance in the rental agreement then it's a moot issue.

 

[adjusterjack]

Well I may be wrong about it, and it would be up to the claims reps, but it seems to me that with the pole laying across the ground where it doesn't belong it would fall under comprehensive, quite different than crashing into a pole and losing control.
I see it along the same lines as hitting an animal in the road.

First of all, it's rarely called "Comprehensive" any more. In the standard personal auto policy it's either Collision or Other Than Collision.

Again, read your own policy. Hitting an animal is specified as Other Than Collision, hitting a stationary object is not on that list so it's Collision where hitting an "object" is specified. This is one of those cases where the policy is very specific.

"[H]itting an animal in the road" is the same thing as colliding with an animal is is covered under the collision portion of the policy.

Hope you meant to say Other Than Collision.

there is no way the business has liability.

Afraid that not correct either. ZDDoodah's comment is correct:

Leaving the pole lying on the ground in the dark (for two days) with nothing to alert drivers to the hazard is clear negligence.

I inserted the phrase because had it been only a short time where it had not yet been reported or it had been reported and there was no opportunity to do anything about it might have been a different story.

At any rate, the question of the hotel owner's negligence is not entirely clear either.

According to the Virginia Supreme Court:

"It is well-established that Virginia law requires storeowners to maintain reasonably safe facilities for their invitees' visits. As we explained long ago, a storeowner is not an insurer of the invitee's safety on the premises, but must use ordinary care to render them reasonably safe for the invitee's visit. Knight v. Moore, 179 Va. 139, 145, 18 S.E.2d 266, 269 (1942)(citing cases). Further, while a storeowner "must give notice or warning of an unsafe condition which is known to him and is unknown to the invitee, such notice is not required where the dangerous condition is open and obvious, and is patent to a reasonable person exercising ordinary care for his own safety." Id. at 146, 18 S.E.2d at 269 (citing Eastern Shore of Va. Agric. Ass'n v. LeCato, 151 Va. 614, 619-20, 144 S.E. 713, 714 (1928)). In addition, an invitee also "has the right to assume that the premises are reasonably safe for his visit," and "n the absence of knowledge or warning of danger, ... is not required to be on the lookout for it." Id. at 146, 18 S.E.2d at 270 (citing cases)."

Google Scholar

That same case also addresses contributory negligence as a bar to recovery. If the hazardous condition was open and obvious and the OP backed into it, then he would be barred from recovery.

At the moment we just have a photo of the pole in a strong flash so it's not possible to render a decision on contributory negligence. It would help to have a photo of the pole at night without a flash to see if it was visible or not to somebody driving in to the parking lot.

Google is your friend...

Not this time. That page you found had nothing to do with this situation. On the other hand, Google Scholar was where I got the case decision from.

I just don't want this to count against me on my insurance if it was in fact the hotel being negligent.

Since you bought the optional damage coverage there would be nothing to count against your own insurance.

 

[matthew6969]

Final update. When I went to return the car, enterprise was not worried in the slightest as to what happened to the car. Didn't want any information or anything. They just said since you bought the rental coverage we will send it to the shop for repairs and you won't have to worry about anything. Moral or the story, ALWAYS opt for the rental coverage! Thank you all for your time