Somebody HIT my BABY and RAN AWAY!!!!
10-18-2006, 10:41 PM
#52
Banned
What a crap situation this is. i actually just fixed my hood. I think some apple or something fell from a tree and put a little push in my hood. not a dent, not a paint prob, just sorta knocked it in - and i freaked out and my service advisor had MB NY fixed it in a few hours. So i can only imagine how you feel bro.
10-19-2006, 01:45 AM
#53
Super Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Saint Louis
Posts: 872
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
CLS 63 S AMG , s500,clk550
this sucks guys!!!i have to replace my whole door and its gonna cost me 2700 for the door frame and installation. this really sucks!!
10-19-2006, 03:35 AM
#54
Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S500
i'm sorry about the damage to your car, fusion. the coward who did it will get theirs.
but don't you have hit-and-run coverage under the comprehensive portion of your insurance?
but don't you have hit-and-run coverage under the comprehensive portion of your insurance?
10-19-2006, 07:13 AM
#55
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes
on
14 Posts
2005 S500 4-Matic, 1978 450SL
With respect to personal property, the general view is that an owner may not commit an assault or battery upon the wrongdoer in order to recover property. A majority of jurisdictions recognize the right of an owner in hot pursuit of stolen property to use a reasonable amount of force to retrieve it.
But reasonable force may be used to protect property from wrongful taking or willful damage in the first place - before "hot pursuit" even has a chance to occur. There is a legally significant difference between prevention and recovery. Such reasonable force may be physical if it was the minimum effort necessary to prevent the taking or the damage, and this is even more true when the property is in close proximity to the owner.
The situation that Chucky300 presents was at the prevention stage, and in his very close proximity to the property - not a situation of recovery after the fact. In his presence, close by the property, the women threatened to cause even more damage than they may have already caused while he was away. Under his circumstances, force, including physical contact, would have been permissible in most jurisdictions - even in New York City.
Last edited by Skylaw; 10-19-2006 at 07:40 AM.
10-19-2006, 10:57 AM
#59
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'03 S600
If the damage estimate was $900, would that change the premium as opposed to an estimate 3X that?
I figure that if one is going to spend $60k+ on a car, things such as MPG, car insurance fall by the wayside. I worry more about my investments....
I figure that if one is going to spend $60k+ on a car, things such as MPG, car insurance fall by the wayside. I worry more about my investments....
10-19-2006, 12:48 PM
#60
Banned
Asssault (threat of force) or battery (contact) may perhaps not be legal to recover personal property long after the fact once it has been taken. It may be used in hot pursuit, which you mentioned, and which is obviously not "long after the fact."
But reasonable force may be used to protect property from wrongful taking or willful damage in the first place - before "hot pursuit" even has a chance to occur. There is a legally significant difference between prevention and recovery. Such reasonable force may be physical if it was the minimum effort necessary to prevent the taking or the damage, and this is even more true when the property is in close proximity to the owner.
The situation that Chucky300 presents was at the prevention stage, and in his very close proximity to the property - not a situation of recovery after the fact. In his presence, close by the property, the women threatened to cause even more damage than they may have already caused while he was away. Under his circumstances, force, including physical contact, would have been permissible in most jurisdictions - even in New York City.
But reasonable force may be used to protect property from wrongful taking or willful damage in the first place - before "hot pursuit" even has a chance to occur. There is a legally significant difference between prevention and recovery. Such reasonable force may be physical if it was the minimum effort necessary to prevent the taking or the damage, and this is even more true when the property is in close proximity to the owner.
The situation that Chucky300 presents was at the prevention stage, and in his very close proximity to the property - not a situation of recovery after the fact. In his presence, close by the property, the women threatened to cause even more damage than they may have already caused while he was away. Under his circumstances, force, including physical contact, would have been permissible in most jurisdictions - even in New York City.
You bet !!!!
