Hacker News Reader

Comment by gruez | Hacker News Reader

>because if someone tripped I'd be liable for this

isn't the sidewalk the city's responsibility? Also, wouldn't your homeowner's insurance cover it?

>In really small print at the bottom of the email was information telling me it was optional to do, but again I might be liable if anything happens.

Honestly the arrangement seems rent-seeking(ish) to me. At the very least it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. They're not providing any real value, just scaring people into paying with an (arguably) misleading letter.

View on HN

> They're not providing any real value, just scaring people into paying

Unfortunately there are plenty of business built exactly like that.

One anecdote: there was a group of lawyers that would hire people in wheelchairs to go into stores (e.g. local Verizon dealer) and ask to use the restroom, then once inside the restroom measure everything and take notes. Apparently businesses are not required to make their restrooms available to the public, but if they do, they need to be up to code. So these guys would target chains of businesses that normally didn't allow public into their restrooms, hence the restrooms were usually not up to code. After gathering enough data they would then sue the companies and offer to settle for an amount very close to what it would cost the company to deal with the case in court.

There are plenty of cases regarding ada abuses in california.

Or you could see it as them using the Ada for it's exact intended purpose, to force businesses not to exclude disabled customers by imposing an actual cost on them that is potentially greater than the cost of complying with the act. Sounds good to me!

I don't see how this is good. Some businesses allow their customers to use their private bathroom on a case by case basis. Now they will just stop doing that so everyone suffers equally.

Their bathrooms should be accessible for their employees as well, even if they're not usable by customers, because disabled people should be able to work to.

> isn't the sidewalk the city's responsibility?

There are plenty of cities where the homeowner is responsible for maintenance of the sidewalk and street trees. My city will cover 50% for city trees replacements and root damage to sidewalks. I last year replaced two old trees and it cost me just under $1k after splitting with the city. To make it worse, the contractors raised the prices when the city started offering the 50% cost sharing.

If you’re aware of a potentially dangerous problem, ignore it, and somebody gets hurt because of it, your homeowner’s insurance isn’t going to rush to cut a check.

But is that the case here? OP said it was looked flat.

Sure. But then there was a letter from what in this case can be seen as an expert warning of potential danger. If that was intentionally ignored, would it be impossible to claim some level of negligence?

Shady.

In many parts of the US the city bills the homeowners for sidewalk repairs or replacement even if they do the work.

In areas with an HOA often the HOA or homeowners are responsible for things the government is in other places, roads, street lights, sidewalks, storm drains.

Insurance companies (in the US at least) will easily drop you over something like this, even if they do pay out first.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com