you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 10 months ago (8 children)

And how do you prove that ding is the one the note leaver caused?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (7 children)
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    just because its a civil court doesnt mean it is based off vibes

    "Yes Officer, he damaged my car. this damage right here. The Proof? I say so your honor. I rest my case."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    verifiable evidence that the damage was pre-existing that the note leaver could somehow provide

    Like a photo of the driver circling the car, unable to spot where the damage was, immediately after reading the note? Hmmmm....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    No, I read that - it's just not substantial. If the ding already existed, my point is that the driver is overlooking it in the photo we're seeing. That is proof that it is not new damage and shouldn't be considered in this case. I get that you're trying to CYA, but it doesn't need to be to this degree of hyper-vigilance.

  • source
  • parent