Collateral damage from the circulator

Posted 12/6/16

To the Editor: On November 8, 2016, I was traveling west on Centerville Road about 2:30 in the afternoon along with many other cars. The road had just been scraped and cleared of the old asphalt awaiting the new asphalt to be poured later that day.

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Collateral damage from the circulator

Posted

To the Editor:

On November 8, 2016, I was traveling west on Centerville Road about 2:30 in the afternoon along with many other cars. The road had just been scraped and cleared of the old asphalt awaiting the new asphalt to be poured later that day. Driving at a low speed, I drove over a manhole cover that was protruding far above the driving surface. I heard a noise and when I pulled over and checked my car, the two passenger side tires were both flat.

Yes, there were police officers on scene. I placed an incident report with one of them. Yes, there were orange cones all over the place, but not near the manhole cover. Yes, there was clearly road construction happening and signs stating such. However, the manhole covers were not marked. When asked why the covers were not painted orange as a warning, the police officer stated because they were going to be repaving later anyway.

My claim to Cardi Corporation was denied. They stated the damage to my car "is something outside of the control of Cardi Corporation.” But for the fact that they left the protruding manhole covers unmarked, my tires may not have blown out. As a taxpayer that pays for the big companies to do this work, am I just considered collateral damage?

The inconvenience of being caught in sometimes non-moving traffic is one thing and I guess a necessary evil of progress. However, physical damage to one's vehicle is unacceptable. I am sure I am not the only one affected in this way. I wonder how many other innocent, taxpaying motorists have had similar experiences. I know this is a case of the little guy versus big business, but I felt compelled to express my frustration.  Bill Mahoney

North Kingstown

Comments

4 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • Thecaptain

    Bill,

    You are correct in your expectation that you should be paid for the damage. The fact of the matter is that Cardi has been in violation of NUMEROUS areas of the contract throughout the duration of the project. Structures or items that protrude above the existing grade of the pavement that traffic is allowed to access must be marked with paint or be identified with cones , barrels, etc. There is also no exception for temporary paved areas. (See RI Blue Book code of road and bridge design) I would recommend that you contact Jim Hummel at the Hummel report at Jim@hummelreport.org and share your circumstances with him. He has already done 2 reports on the circulator project.

    Tuesday, December 6, 2016 Report this

  • davebarry109

    I would take them to small claims court. It costs about 100 to file. They may pay up rather than send an attorney to fight it. You don't need an attorney. Bring your paperwork/estimates.

    Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Report this

  • richardcorrente

    Wouldn't this be an issue for the Warwick City Council?

    When damage happens as a result of potholes Warwick takes responsibility and pays. Wouldn't this fall in that same category?

    I believe it does or at least should.

    Merry Christmas Bill Mahoney. I hope you get reimbursed.

    Rick Corrente

    Thursday, December 8, 2016 Report this

  • Thecaptain

    Rick,

    Another example of your lack of knowledge. It is a state road so the claim must be made against the state. Time to study study study.

    Friday, December 9, 2016 Report this