[aeruder]

> They also run the risk of being held personally liable if someone were to be injured by the pothole they attempted to fix.

Are they suggesting that the city can be held liable when a pothole they _haven't_ fixed jacks up my car or its tires? I've not really heard of that working in practice. From Portland's own website [0]:

> Most pothole claims are not paid.

Yea, figures - I think I'll take my chances with the anarchist-repaired potholes.

[0] https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bibs/article/629953

[xoa]

>Are they suggesting that the city can be held liable when a pothole they _haven't_ fixed jacks up my car or its tires? I've not really heard of that working in practice.

I don't know about Portland or Oregon, since it's a state/city level issue I assume laws vary all over the USA there. However, in my state that is absolutely the case on state roads, not "liable" so much as "you can be reimbursed for documented damages up to some limit", and the process is a quite straightforward one that I've personally taken advantage of. A few years back I hit a fresh major pothole on a state highway (50 mph speed limit) and it destroyed tires on the passenger side, though at least I avoided serious damage to my shocks. I documented the tow, repair, and tire replacement cost, downloaded the state reimbursement form, and sent it all in. 3 weeks later the state sent me back a check for the $500-someodd it cost no questions asked.

I suspect a lot of people don't know about such laws but from a brief glance they do seem reasonably widespread around the country, so it's always worth checking. Maybe another one of those many things that can work quite well and easily in your favor if you know about it, but that most people don't even know to take advantage of in the first place. Certainly didn't come up in driver's ed, I only learned about it while talking shop with other people volunteering to help a campaign for state office.

[korethr]

An amusing thought: If a lot more people would start submitting claims though such laws, the cities/states would start getting more proactive in fixing damage to the roads, so as to limit the amount of legit claims they had to pay.

[f2n]

Or have the law changed.

[darkerside]

It would be out of character for the government to suddenly refuse an opportunity to grow

[gshulegaard]

This may also apply to construction areas. My relative hit a temporary metal plate (after construction hours) commuting home from work and it destroyed a tire and dented a rim. Filed a claim through the local municipality which eventually got forwarded to the contracted construction company which fully reimbursed repair costs.

[IAmEveryone]

It's simply "you touch it, you (might) own it". The same principle applies, for example, to first aid, which is why "Good Samaritan" laws exist shielding you from liability. I generally sympathise with your point of view, because I really don't know how you can actually make a pothole worse by attempting to fix it. But if someone can make such a case ("they fixed it with road-coloured cardboard paper and I didn't see the hole below"), then yeah, they are liable.

The city is just giving advice in this case. If someone where to harmed by one of these fixed potholes, the lawsuit would be between that person and these "pothole vigilantes".

[hermitdev]

> I really don't know how you can actually make a pothole worse by attempting to fix it.

My first thought would be using substandard or incorrect materials. Say, using concrete in an asphalt surface. You quasi cover this with your cardboard part of the comment. Perhaps an incorrect mix of aggregate to asphalt might have different thermal properties. If the pothole expanded more/faster than the surrounding material, it might make it a lot worse. Also, if your materials are not safe to drive on while setting (like my example, filling a hole with concrete). You'd also be endangering yourself and others while attempting such work as you'll be unsuitably marked and lanes won't be properly barricaded for your work.

[ensignavenger]

"I really don't know how you can actually make a pothole worse by attempting to fix it"

You have clearly never lived in the town where I grew up :)

[schoen]

> "you touch it, you (might) own it"

Perhaps compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855.

[BlackFly]

This was always the problem I had with the idea of having liability for cleaning the ice off the sidewalk in front of your house. The province/city/state isn't responsible if your car crashes because they didn't salt the road/bridge in time (or at all), so why is there a double standard?

[maxerickson]

It's good to be the king.

(that's literally where the double standard comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity )

[klmr]

In the UK it’s relatively easy to claim compensation [1] and, as far as I’ve heard, this is usually paid out if the road damage had been reported previously.

[1]: https://www.gov.uk/claim-for-damage-to-your-vehicle

[chris_wot]

I was thinking the same thing. What's more dangerous, a pothole, or one that a bunch of amateurs temporarily patched? I say the pothole is far more dangerous.