Car Scratched from car wash, actions to take?

You are correct, though some may argue the placement of the warning. Was it given before he paid, was he given the opportunity for a refund if he did not agree? All of these things matter.

If you got the car a week ago, I suspect the the previous owner, not the car wash. They put something on your hood to make it look nice, make just a thin paint job, and the first time you put it through a car wash, you could tell that it had removed something.

soundtechie said: If you got the car a week ago, I suspect the the previous owner, not the car wash. They put something on your hood to make it look nice, make just a thin paint job, and the first time you put it through a car wash, you could tell that it had removed something....thick coat of wax.

soundtechie said: If you got the car a week ago, I suspect the the previous owner, not the car wash. They put something on your hood to make it look nice, make just a thin paint job, and the first time you put it through a car wash, you could tell that it had removed something.

If that's the case, the car wash actually indirectly did OP a favor by letting him know.

sherry7 said: This is why I only take my vehicles through "touch free" car washes. It's definitely worth the extra couple of bucks.I sort of agree, because those the brushes/cloths at the other car washes can collect abrasives off of other vehicles, however the water at the "touch-free" washes is under high pressure and probably can do some damage too. There is no perfect way other than washing it yourself, and in cold country in the winter, that's not an option.

mewannaxbox said: You are correct, though some may argue the placement of the warning. Was it given before he paid, was he given the opportunity for a refund if he did not agree? All of these things matter.

I didn't see a warning posted at all...

And I actually paid with a Capital One credit card, i wonder if i have any protection via the credit card?

EDIT: i looked through it, didn't see anything, oh well

Crazytree said: aec307 said: soundtechie said: If you got the car a week ago, I suspect the the previous owner, not the car wash. They put something on your hood to make it look nice, make just a thin paint job, and the first time you put it through a car wash, you could tell that it had removed something.

I doubt that one, it is a 2006, im sure it was the factory paint job.are those scratches on your glass?

Actually they are on the tinting, the person who did the tint, put the back window tint on the outside actually.

The tint may just save you in this case. You have a record that the tint was in new condition only a couple days ago, so this bolsters your claim that the car wash did the damage. Otherwise, it would be just your word, with no real evidence there was no previous damage. I don't know if you can walk into the car wash or not. If you can, it wouldn't hurt to look for a missing brush, wire, anything that could have caused the damage and snap a picture.

Red for:

A. Caring too much about cosmetic things on a car.

B. "Low and behold," a sign that you come from the modern generation of people that learns to speak and write, but never reads.

I was driving behind a dump truck hauling rocks a couple months ago. There was a sign near the bumper that read "We are not liable if any rocks fly off and damage your vehicle". I chuckled.

drodge said: The tint may just save you in this case. You have a record that the tint was in new condition only a couple days ago, so this bolsters your claim that the car wash did the damage.

I would highly doubt that the install "person" who didn't know enough to tint the INSIDE of a car window would have been a professional shop that gave OP an actual invoice for the work!

(If it was a shop...he should at least be getting a tint job refund out of this! )

aec307 said: craftsmd said: drodge said: The tint may just save you in this case. You have a record that the tint was in new condition only a couple days ago, so this bolsters your claim that the car wash did the damage.

I would highly doubt that the install "person" who didn't know enough to tint the INSIDE of a car window would have been a professional shop that gave OP an actual invoice for the work!

(If it was a shop...he should at least be getting a tint job refund out of this! )

It actually was a professional shop, gave me a receipt. Told me it carried a lifetime warranty. I was a little thrown off when he tinted the outside, but he then told me they had a lifetime warranty... I'll go make him fix it if there is a problem.

Tinting on the outside for the rear window actually makes sense to me, since removal is tricky on the back window with the defroster lines. And yeah, I'd never take my car thru an automated car wash with a brush, you're just asking for trouble.

car wash broke my auxiliary lights once. they wouldnt do anything for me. i could have fought it, but it was easier to fleabay new ones for $25 and never use them again.

airport parking once damaged my car (again with my auxiliary lights) and they paid out pretty well! tried to lie their way out of it until i pulled out a digital camera and started taking pictures and collecting broken glass for evidence!

LifeAsISeeIt said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most car washes have disclaimers of liability that prevent them from being held responsible for damage to the cars going through?
The disclaimer is like saying "you car will be washed but will get scratches" Is that acceptable

Crazytree said: LifeAsISeeIt said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most car washes have disclaimers of liability that prevent them from being held responsible for damage to the cars going through?from ordinary and reasonable use, yes. but if the damage is caused intentionally or negligently (defective brushes)... that's another story.That's only partially correct. What the car wash and other businesses that use various types of disclaimers are attempting to do (aside from just scaring off the uneducated) is to provide themselves with a foundation for an assumption of risk defense. If they are successful in establishing that a valid and enforceable assumption of risk has taken place, it typically won't matter whether they were negligent since in most states assumption of risk serves as an absolute defense to a negligence claim. It is true, however, that assumption of risk will never defeat claims based on intentional torts or on gross negligence but based on the facts presented here, there is no basis for such claims.

Now, while state law on assumption of risk varies, a business typically can't avail itself of the assumption of risk defense by merely showing that a disclaimer was printed on the back of a ticket. However, although conditions precedent to giving rise to such a defense vary state to state, you can almost never defeat the defense by asserting that the defendant was negligent.

A lay person's explanation of the assumption of risk doctrine can be found here. Non-lawyers need to keep in mind though that there is a LOT more to the doctrine than just the brief Wiki explanation, which only serves to provide a very basic definition of this defense. Here is a more extensive explanation of this doctrine.

bopc1996 said: hey if they damaged the car they can put up 100 signs; it does not matter ; they are liable; civil law 101With the exception of Louisiana with its strange civil law provisions, every other state in the union uses common law rather than civil law.

Regardless, depending on the state, the number and the content of warning notices can certainly absolve the business of any liability predicated on negligence claims that are covered by notices. Please see my brief explanation regarding the assumption of risk defense above. In very simple terms, if a company made you aware of certain risks of conducting business with it, you understood the risks but still voluntarily chose to engage business with that company, you will be deemed to have assumed the risk of such an activity. In that case, the company will not have a duty of care to you, which means that you typically won't be able to prevail in negligence lawsuits against the company.

As I also mentioned above, in most states and in most situations just printing a disclaimer on the back of a ticket won't give rise to an enforceable assumption of risk defense. Putting up 100 signs quite often will, however.

geo123 said: bopc1996 said: hey if they damaged the car they can put up 100 signs; it does not matter ; they are liable; civil law 101With the exception of Louisiana with its strange civil law provisions, every other state in the union uses common law rather than civil law.

Regardless, depending on the state, the number and the content of warning notices can certainly absolve the business of any liability predicated on negligence claims that are covered by notices. Please see my brief explanation regarding the assumption of risk defense above. In very simple terms, if a company made you aware of certain risks of conducting business with it, you understood the risks but still voluntarily chose to engage business with that company, you will be deemed to have assumed the risk of such an activity. In that case, the company will not have a duty of care to you, which means that you typically won't be able to prevail in negligence lawsuits against the company.

As I also mentioned above, in most states and in most situations just printing a disclaimer on the back of a ticket won't give rise to an enforceable assumption of risk defense. Putting up 100 signs quite often will, however.

not so !! if company was negligent ie defective equipment they ARE liable !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

geo123 said: bopc1996 said: hey if they damaged the car they can put up 100 signs; it does not matter ; they are liable; civil law 101With the exception of Louisiana with its strange civil law provisions, every other state in the union uses common law rather than civil law.

I take exception to that. We adopted the Napoleonic code before Napoleon did. It makes a hell of a lot of sense, since you don't have to worry about the medieval baggage of the common law.

bopc1996 said: not so !! if company was negligent ie defective equipment they ARE liable !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Once again, generally assumption of risk is an absolute bar to negligence claims. In other words, subject to the specific provisions of state law (the elements of this defense vary somewhat state to state), if a company clearly and conspicuously warns you about a certain danger but you knowingly and voluntarily still choose to engage in that activity and/or to do business with that company and the specific danger about which you were warned materializes, you will generally be unable to prevail against the company based on a negligence tort.

Here is a Torts 101 explanation. In order to maintain a negligence based tort (as opposed to a tort based on strict liability or on an intentional act), you generally must establish the existence of the following 4 elements: duty, breach of duty, causation and injury. If you are unable to establish any one of these 4 elements, your tort claim fails. Most states say that if the plaintiff has assumed a risk, the defendant no longer has a duty of care with respect to that specific risk. Therefore, your negligence based tort fails because you are unable to establish that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff with respect to that risk.

This is not to say that the car wash will be able to successfully establish this defense here (we don't have enough facts to know one way or the other). This is to say that if they are successful in that undertaking, a negligence based claim will be barred.