My brother-in-law borrowed the car one day to go to the bank. He was in the bank for a couple of hours doing his transactions when he heard a loud cash coming from outside. He had parked the car right outside the doors of the bank so he thought of checking the vehicle. To his surprise, the car had a lot of paint splashes on it, and a can of paint was right beside the vehicle.
When he looked up, he saw a couple of workers suspended on harnesses on the side wall of the building. Apparently, a can of paint fell of their elevated ramp and fell right beside the car. However, the impact splashed the contents of the paint all over the vehicle. Enraged, my brother-in-law called for the manager of the bank and demanded an explanation. He asked to be compensated for the damage on the borrowed vehicle.
The manager refused saying the accident happened outside their building and it was their contractor’s fault. Of course, the manager and the owner of the building faced a heavy lawsuit that our family filed in court.
It took a lot of effort and money in the following weeks when we pursued the case against the negligence of these people involved. The contractors argued they followed the safety hazards standards, citing no serious damage occurred and everything was a plain accident. They were willing to pay a minimal amount to cover the cost of having the car body repainted. They even insisted that it was my brother-in-law’s fault for parking the car there in the first place.
My lawyer was really intelligent so I guess that’s how we won the case. My attorney argued that there were no hazard signs where my brother-in-law parked the car so he had no idea that there was a maintenance job being done on the building. Had the can of paint fallen on my brother’s head, it would have caused him fatal injuries. With those grounds, the contractor and the building owner were held liable for failing to provide fall protection. They ended up paying more money in damages, compensations and penalties.