Told neighbor I pay for trampoline damage if I'm responsible, but am I responsible?

seatbeltnoob

AdrianC wrote: »

So you're arguing that the Honda you mentioned should have simply been written off because of the hail damage to the roof skin, since it wasn't repairable?

This is what I have a problem with most of all. You, for the sake of winning an internet arguement will make up a straw man arguement.

I did not even mention a THING about what the Honda owner should have done. Unlike you I don't have the time to make up imaginary scenarios to argue over with you.

I am here to help the OP. There is no way a replacement roof panel isn't being put on without some filler to hide the weld marks. So the injured party not wanting any body filler in order to fix the minor dent on his roof is completely wrong and has unrealistic expectations.

AdrianC

seatbeltnoob wrote: »

you just linked to another article proving the same point that steel roofs that were factory welded need to be welded to the roof beams, it cannot be glued on.

No, the article clearly states that many cars have bonded roofs. Some do not, and require welding. This particular Honda is in the latter camp, but we have no idea what car is involved in the OP's situation.

Besides, you seem to have forgotten that, even where roofskins are welded, the spotwelds used produce very little, very localised heat, and are hidden behind trims and glass. A welded skin was spotwelded on originally, a replacement can be spotwelded on. The only difference between a robot and a human operating the spotwelder is the potential accuracy of positioning the welds. We are not talking about somebody waving a MIG torch, let alone oxy.

Roof panels are replaced by bodyshops daily, in accordance with vehicle-specific procedures, with zero distortion.

You have resurrected a month-closed thread, without seemingly reading the 10 pages of posts, simply to throw in your "expertise" on something which you appear to have actual zero clue about. The OP's original question was whether new panels would be required, or if a repair would be acceptable. The simple answer to that is that nobody knows, because there's been no photos of the damage. The one people who do know - the bodyshop who have seen the car - say panel replacement is the answer. The 10 pages since have been arguing about whether the trampoline should have been tied down with a storm forecast or not. The neighbour's car has undoubtedly long since been fixed, and the OP hasn't been back to the site for a month.

seatbeltnoob wrote: »

So you're arguing that the Honda you mentioned should have simply been written off because of the hail damage to the roof skin, since it wasn't repairable?

This is what I have a problem with most of all. You, for the sake of winning an internet arguement will make up a straw man arguement.

I did not even mention a THING about what the Honda owner should have done.

Yes, exactly. You're full of instant-expert-but-what-about, with no actual practicality or realism or thought to the consequences.

The original repair to the Honda you introduced is exactly the same as the OP's neighbours - minor panel damage to the roof skin, leading to replacement being the cheaper and easier alternative than repairing the old panel.

If you are saying that it is not possible to replace a roof skin properly without turning it into a ball of crumpled bacofoil or putting a thick layer of podge on then, short of a reshell, then writing the car off is the only option. Unless I'm missing some option...? Perhaps you could help me out there?

No, thought not.