Posted on 08/04/2007 9:14:06 AM PDT by NCjim
Yep. Mostly.
bump for later.
When we lived in Japan my wife went off the road and took out a few bushes in a hedge. We had to pay $300-400 for them. The pisser was a few months later, they dug up the entire hedge to widen the road (and no, the plants my wife wrecked hadn’t been replaced).
So you are not for holding people responsible for the damage resulting from their negligence?
If I run my car into your house, I should pay to repair your house.
If I run my car into a guard rail and am required to pay for the guard rail then the state should reimburse the taxpayers. And my point is, that doesn't happen.
Why don't we require heavy haulers to pay for road damages caused by their big rigs?
Because they're charged heavier taxes in anticipation of the damage.
I guess I don't follow your line of thinking. The taxpayers have already paid for said guard rail. If the cost of repairing it after you hit it is $XXXXX, then you should have to pay for that damage so the taxpayers are not stuck paying for the damage YOU caused. Of course, the rail is going to be fixed before you pay a penny towards the cost, but that money should go back into the highway fund to replace the tax money that was expended from YOUR damage.
I really don't see a difference between that and hitting a power pole. You/the ratepayers have already paid for that pole, but they will pay for the replacement as well. So you should have to pay for it...
By your view, if you ran into the front of a state or federal building (or into a police car, or a city buss), you shouldn't have to pay for the damages because your/our tax dollars have already been spent to buy them in the first place, and will be used to fix them.
State highway budgets account for new roads and maintenance of existing roads. They've already got taxpayer money to pay for their estimates.
Part of the budget is based on the damage done by auto crashes. This is an identifiable figure based on the previous year work order categories.
My line of thinking is, if they've already collected money for crash damages, and they then sue drivers for damages caused during an accident, then the state should either pay back the taxpayer or the state should quit forecasting budget money based on auto accidents and simply send everybody a bill for any damages done during an accident.
If you're unhappy with your road conditions and insurance rates now, wait until that happens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.