A New York Justice Court has ruled in favor of Daniel Erickson, a driver whose vehicle was damaged while using the Valet Auto Wash facility. The court awarded Erickson $2,311.01 for the damage caused to his car's rear spoiler during an automated wash on March 9, 2026. This decision is significant as it underscores the responsibilities of businesses regarding posted disclaimers and their liability for damages caused by their operations.

The case, Erickson v. Valet Auto Wash, Docket No. 26040072, was decided by Justice Richard J. Brink on November 9, 2026. The ruling affects both consumers who use automated car wash services and businesses that operate such facilities, as it clarifies the limits of liability disclaimers.

Background

Daniel Erickson, the plaintiff in this case, filed a small claims action against Valet Auto Wash after his vehicle, a 2016 Subaru WRX, suffered damage while going through the car wash. Erickson had used the facility over 40 times without incident before this occurrence. The incident happened when the car wash's equipment tore off the rear spoiler of his vehicle, leading Erickson to seek a total of $2,296.01 in damages.

Erickson represented himself in court, while Brayden Meade, the General Manager of Valet Auto Wash, also appeared pro se. The court heard testimonies from both parties and reviewed several pieces of evidence, including photographs and repair estimates. The case raised questions about the validity of the disclaimers posted at the car wash, which stated that the business was not responsible for damage to vehicles.

The Ruling

The court found that Valet Auto Wash was liable for the damage to Erickson's vehicle. Justice Brink noted that the posted disclaimer signs did not absolve the business of responsibility for damage caused by its operations. The judge referenced a previous case, Courtney v. Vescio, which established that businesses cannot avoid liability for damages caused by their own conduct.

The court ruled, "Because the damage resulted from Defendant's own operations rather than the conduct of a third party, the posted disclaimer signs are ineffective to shield Defendant from liability."

Justice Brink concluded that Erickson had demonstrated, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that his spoiler was torn off by the wash equipment. The court noted that Valet Auto Wash had acknowledged that the spoiler must have caught on something during the wash cycle and that the business had a manual override feature designed to accommodate vehicles equipped with spoilers.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for both consumers and businesses in the car wash industry. It emphasizes that businesses cannot simply rely on posted disclaimers to avoid liability for damages caused by their equipment. The court's decision reinforces the idea that if a business's operations lead to damage, they may still be held accountable, regardless of any disclaimers.

Consumers can take this ruling as a precedent that they may have legal recourse if their vehicles are damaged due to a business's negligence, even when disclaimers are posted. This case could encourage more careful operation of automated car wash facilities and prompt businesses to reconsider how they communicate risk to customers.

What's Next

Valet Auto Wash has the option to appeal the court's decision. If they choose to do so, it could lead to further examination of liability issues in similar cases. Details regarding any pending appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.