Dont worry, I'm expecting an apology from all of the asshats who couldnt wait to get a dig in at me in that thread

B+C split easily. "A" could have been watching traffic, thinking about the route, messing with the radio, whatever. You shouldnt have to watch passengers entering/entering your vehicle like a damn hawk, nor should you have to supervise them like a babysitter.

B and C are idiots. B's idiocy caused the door situation in the first place, and C's idiot actions directly ****ed up the door. The condition of the door handle only comes into play if you can see that it's faulty from a cursory inspection. As it was unknown to all, it shouldnt be a factor. Also, I highly doubt C gave "a few reasonable tugs," lol. He yanked that bitch using his ******-strength.

AND, yet again, A was doing a favor to the two clowns by giving them a ride. He shouldnt have to pay anything for that reason alone.

I wasn't saying you were right in that thread, you were super obviously absolutely wrong. You've basically decided the opposite thing in this thread.

i dont really care who pays what but person C coudnt be a bigger *******

grunch:

the car sounds like a POS that was probably falling apart anyway if someone can break the door by pulling on it, so why not just split it 3-ways?

oh wait, so it was already broken and then glued back together? **** that ****, A pays for all of it. especially because he was an ******* about it and tried to get out of paying anything.

this all reminds me of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxakBta5pAM, please don't judge me by that reference though. it was a popular show, and is now in syndication, so it's on all the GD time!

Given that the car is a relatively new Honda Civic and there had been no previous damage to the door handle, C pays. And it's not even close imo.

B should pay for being a dumbass and pulling on the door so hard it split in half.

You shouldnt have grunched. The condition of the car door has been updated in the thread.

No, YOU were super obviously absolutely wrong about "subjective situation X!"

OP sure sounds like he has a lot in common with C.

OP you seem colossally dumb and are now trying to blame your other two friends for your own error.

yeah your clumsy friend knocked the door into the bank, but you tried to pull it closed without first getting out of the car to unstick the door or tell your friend who was driving that maybe both of you need to get out of the car for weight reasons. You are in the shotgun, closing the door properly is your responsibility (****ing aye I can't even believe this had to be said). To me, getting out of the car is so standard here that anything but that is unfathomable.

You not offering to pay anything is even worse.

You seem like a terrible friend as well. Best advice is not pay anything and move on to new suckers...err friends.

No, this is just yet another example of OOT constantly berating the OP despite a CLEAR injustice

B has no obligations here, and apparently is being a good guy by offering anything: at worst he was negligent in getting the door stuck, but it could almost certainly have been extricated by marginally intelligent people without damage.

Between C and A, it's a matter of whether the door was in bad shape to begin with. (If yes, A owes it all; if no, C does.) Given that that's going to be hard to determine, splitting between A and C seems a reasonable choice, but if either C can determine the door was rusted out or A can show that it was in good shape, that will swing it. (My guess is that it's C's fault, but it sounds like he [OP?] is going to be a dick about it.)

given updated information about car condition, C pays entirely. that car is unlikely to have it's door handle break without an unusual amount of force. this isn't exactly a common issue on newish honda civics. i mean, you pulled rivets out of the door.

it also makes you a pretty huge douche for not addressing this/offering to pay earlier. you paying 2/3 with B paying the other 1/3 is literally a steal, i'd take it. assuming you don't like b of course.

this logic is so far off - i'd like to hear your reasoning for person C having 100% obligations here.

He ripped the door handle off.


It's been discussed ad nauseum in this thread. Consensus pretty clearly is that C owns most (though not necessarily all) of the responsibility here.

Most people have enough common sense not to use enough force to rip a door handle off.

I guess he's saying you were the only guy that yanked on the door, and most people, upon learning the door is stuck, would remove the obstruction instead of pull harder.

don't understand this at all. please draw pic.

also this is correct. however if i'm b i offer to chip in, or buy them drinks or something. if i'm A or C i don't expect B to do so, but am grateful and happy for our friendship if they do.

couldnt have said it better myself

grunch: I'm confused, split 3 ways afaict tho

3 way split. So many details left out about car make, previous condition, and really the act itself. Seems like everyone is at fault in some capacity or another. 3 way split seems the most reasonable, followed by C paying it all since he did break it, followed by A paying for it all if it was in really ****** condition to begin with.

If this is true, based upon your actions I suggest opening a book on basic physics. Like, now.

Oh, I see, OP is person C. Well since you are such a douche, OP, you should have to pay for it all.