dégâts de passage

11:28 Dec 4, 2009 

I'm going to close the question as I am just not sure enough of the answers suggested. "Surface damage" is perhaps too narrow, as damage could be caused to the underlying structure; despite the FHS Bridge reference, i'm not convinced about the right-of-way argument; and although "damage caused by driving through/using" was my initial idea, because there has been very little support for it, I am now wondering whether it is in fact right.

So its going to be a customer-flagged issue.

Thanks for all input.

10:36 Dec 2, 2009 

Incidental really means arising as secondary to something more important. So incidental damage to premises is damage that results from their use for a specified purpose. It is difficult to see how it would differ from "normal wear and tear". I suppose that it could cover unforseen accidents in the course of normal use (e.g. exploding photocopiers). But, I don't see anything at all in the source text that would need the inculsion of the word "incidental" in the translation.

12:00 Dec 1, 2009 

According to lawyerintl.com: incidental or unintentional damage is normal wear and tear to a property or facility.

10:47 Dec 1, 2009 

I understand like you that it is the simple fact of damaging the roads by using them which is excluded. Not sure about 'incidental damage' - presumably if you drive a 40 ton lorry down a small lane you might expect it to cause damage. I'm not quite sure of the difference between 'incidental' and 'unintentional' damage are they the same or is there a notion of normal wear and tear in 'incidental'?