Hit a pot hole today and my rim is bent...

Replace the rim.

Send the bill to the city where it happened for reimbursement

 

It could probably be fixed and repainted for less than the cost of a replacement wheel.

I'm surprised you didn't get a pinch flat, where the sidewall gets pinched between the road and the rim causing a characteristic "snake bite" double hole.

 

Cities are required to pay for pot hole damaged rims

 

I'd sure go after the city. And keep an eye on that tire. It may have a mortal wound that's waiting for the right moment to give you a thrill.

 

Where does that requirement come from?

Seattle doesn't pay for damage caused by potholes that haven't been previously reported. Nor does it pay for damage to vehicles that it believes should be off-road capable, such as 4wd trucks and SUVs. Other area cities are less charitable.

 

I get this information from the local news. YMMV

 

If the rim was bent the tyre is toast - damage you may not be able to see. They call it a "bruise" but it often is a separation internally of the layers of the tire.

Cities, such as Edmonton, pay for wheel damage because they know they will loose in court and would incur major costs fighting suits. Curiously, in Edmonton, if a manhole cover comes off and you damage a wheel or suspension hitting the hole -that- is NOT covered. But potholes are. There is a law covering this here in Edmonton.

 

Seattle pays only for damage that happens after the pothole is reported. I.e. the first victim is out of luck. Only those who suffer damage between the first report, and the repair, get any compensation.

 

AND the tire. Really.

 

Really ??
Even if that is true some places, there are 50 states and I GUARANTEE you that it is NOT true in all of them.
Thus your statement is wrong.

 

That's just CRAZY!! then again, it's government, so it what we should expect. It is the traffic engineering department's job (whether they acknowledge it or not) to MONITOR and maintain the streets and roads and make sure they are safe as possible.

 

Well, I'm pretty sure if you took them to court in the US you would win. A hassle to be sure, but whatever.

I was shocked to learn of Edmonton's bylaw that says an open manhole cover isn't covered in their damage coverage. I learned by way of a news report on TV of this after a very heavy thunderstorm caused a flood which blew off a manhole cover on a highway in the city and 5-10 vehicles were damaged when they drove over the open manhole. Some very seriously to the extent of $10,000 or more (try pricing out a wheel on a BMW 7 series, plus suspension damage, plus body damage).

 

I'm surprised a mere pothole would do this damage. i recently curbed a wheel badly while turning on a dark street and there was very little damage to the OEM rim while some "bruising" to the tire.

My son had a similar damage in his car and he half admitted hitting a curb at high speed. The got major internal damage to the tire and started loosing air and become wobly. Fortunately I kept his old steel wheels (teenagers!).

 

Surprising what a pot hole can do, also repaired with a hammer and blowtorch sun in your face and you don't even see them coming

Posted via the PriusChat mobile app.

 

Ouch!! I'll bet that was a rude awakening. Good idea getting a picture showing the hole and the lighting conditions.

 

Woke up alright.... National speed limit Rd (60 mph) and BANG

Posted via the PriusChat mobile app.

 

Wow. I thought I lived in a liberal bastion that was much more inclined than average to look to government and its money for every perceived problem. Apparently not, others are even more inclined that way.

Governments start with sovereign Immunity. That means we can't sue them without their permission. State laws on what types of suits or damages they agree to take, vary widely.

But it is someone else's responsibility to fund them, giving them the resources to do that job. It is not reasonable to hold them to absolutely liability while providing bare-bones or even sub-standard budgets.

Checking various legal websites, I see that the 'pretty sure' part should be deleted, as results vary greatly by area. Many areas allow reasonable time to discover the problem, then reasonable time to actually fix it. Then there is no liability during that reasonable time period. What is 'reasonable' is open to interpretation.