|
HookShot posted:I feel like this thread will appreciate the headline of this article: it's factually incorrect
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
I mean, clearly he can sue; he did sue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I mean, clearly he can sue; he did sue. Free legal advice: The answer to "can I be sued for [x]?" is always "yes" regardless of the value of [x]. You're loving welcome. Whether they will win is a different question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Yeah, that was why I posted it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
I have a friend whose uncle was the victim of medical malpractice and died recently (He had an infection, the hospital knew about it, did nothing, then tried to hide the lab results after the fact.) The victim's sister (my friend's mother) has a lawyer who admits she has a valid case, but states that she can't do anything because in Massachusetts only a child or parent of the victim can sue. He has neither that are alive. Does anyone know if this is true? It seems like a pretty glaring hole in the law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Dragyn posted:I have a friend whose uncle was the victim of medical malpractice and died recently (He had an infection, the hospital knew about it, did nothing, then tried to hide the lab results after the fact.) That specifically is not true. They would likely have to apply to probate his estate, and appoint an executor, and then that person could sue, and the heirs (brothers, sisters, cousins) could take from the recovery, but someone could sue - the claim doesn't just vaporize into thin air because the heirs happen to be some relation other than a parent or child. Its more likely that your friend's mother is confused, or that there are more facts than you have been given, than it is that the attorney didn't know this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:That specifically is not true. They would likely have to apply to probate his estate, and appoint an executor, and then that person could sue, and the heirs (brothers, sisters, cousins) could take from the recovery, but someone could sue - the claim doesn't just vaporize into thin air because the heirs happen to be some relation other than a parent or child. I'm thinking the lawyer doesn't know. My fiancee just found some lawyer's sites that specifically state that NOK can sue for wrongful death, regardless of relation. I think it's time for her to find a new attorney. edit: She's the executor of the estate, was his proxy and had POA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Sometimes, when we don't know things, or know them but think accomplishing it will be difficult, we lie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Sometimes, when we don't know things, or know them but think accomplishing it will be difficult, we lie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
http://consumerist.com/2015/03/11/d-c-court-issues-temporary-order-prohibiting-man-from-smoking-in-his-home-after-neighbors-sue/quote:No home is an island, especially when it shares walls with other houses. As such, a Superior Court judge in Washington, D.C. has issued a temporary order banning a man from smoking inside his home, after his neighbors filed a lawsuit claiming that the fumes were harmful to their health. Enjoy, lawthread. Interesting, but I think people are confusing temporary injunction with "definite decision." Also, fukken lol at $500,000 in damages for second hand-smoke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Unless they share ventilation, how much must he be smoking for it to actually penetrate the next building? Even if it's some row house type poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Javid posted:Unless they share ventilation, how much must he be smoking for it to actually penetrate the next building? Even if it's some row house type poo poo. Supposedly coming through a hole in the basement wall.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The answer to "can I be sued for [x]?" is always "yes" regardless of the value of [x]. What if you tried to sue your neighbor because he said, "looks like it is going to rain tomorrow", and it DID rain which ruined the outdoor wedding you had planned and it was his fault because he cursed you? There have got to be things so ridiculous that crazy people come up with that you actually can't sue for, aren't there?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:What if you tried to sue your neighbor because he said, "looks like it is going to rain tomorrow", and it DID rain which ruined the outdoor wedding you had planned and it was his fault because he cursed you? The point is no because they are being literal and saying you can write anything down and file it as a complaint. There was a case in lawschool where a guy tried to sue the devil and the judge threw it out because of a lack of service of process iirc. But the guy was still able to sue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:The point is no because they are being literal and saying you can write anything down and file it as a complaint. There was a case in lawschool where a guy tried to sue the devil and the judge threw it out because of a lack of service of process iirc. But the guy was still able to sue. I was just wondering if there were things so ridiculous that they would never even make it to the courtroom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
The part where the merits of the suit are decided days or weeks after the filing fee has been collected is a feature, not a bug.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:The point is no because they are being literal and saying you can write anything down and file it as a complaint. There was a case in lawschool where a guy tried to sue the devil and the judge threw it out because of a lack of service of process iirc. But the guy was still able to sue. Why couldn't you just serve him by publication? Really, that judge should have let the case proceed all the way, and then let the plaintiff figure out how exactly he was going to enforce his judgment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Why couldn't you just serve him by publication? What periodicals are published in hell? Remember Pennoyer v. Neff, you can't just throw it in any random paper and call it good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Lol pennoyer. Nerd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Lol pennoyer. Nerd. As a public sector lawyer it doesn't matter to you, but the real holding in Pennoyer is "always get a retainer".
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
sullat posted:What periodicals are published in hell? Remember Pennoyer v. Neff, you can't just throw it in any random paper and call it good. Could one, then, sue God on the premise that he is all-seeing and all-knowing, therefore the mere existence of the suit means he's aware of it? Personally, if I wanted to serve Satan (heh) by publication, I'd aim for LA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Javid posted:Could one, then, sue God on the premise that he is all-seeing and all-knowing, therefore the mere existence of the suit means he's aware of it? God would have sovereign immunity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
Javid posted:Could one, then, sue God on the premise that he is all-seeing and all-knowing, therefore the mere existence of the suit means he's aware of it? http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/files/chambersversusgod.pdf Was thrown out because there wasn't a listed home address.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
That state Senator has one of the best jobs ever. He has represented the same majority-minority district in the Nebraska Legislature for decades while being way further left than anyone else. He basically uses his encylopedic knowledge of parliamentary procedure to troll everyone else while wearing jeans and giving zero fucks about how he is perceived.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
What happens if someone hits your car (100%) fault, and the damage done completely overlaps where there was previous damage already? Repairs would completely repair the previous damage. Does the at fault party pay for repairs assuming there was no damage previously? Say this is in California.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
In my experience, yes, the previous damage is irrelevant. But my experience does not involve California, who knows what nonsense takes place out there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Raimondo posted:What happens if someone hits your car (100%) fault, and the damage done completely overlaps where there was previous damage already? Repairs would completely repair the previous damage. Does the at fault party pay for repairs assuming there was no damage previously? Say this is in California. As long as it's not known to be previously damaged I'm gonna guess that the old damage would be indistinguishable from the new. If you wanted to be honest about it you could admit it but I'd just let it get fixed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
grnberet2b posted:http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/files/chambersversusgod.pdf By the way, its pretty evident that poo poo was typed, on a typewriter, in 2007.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
MonkeyBot posted:As long as it's not known to be previously damaged I'm gonna guess that the old damage would be indistinguishable from the new. That's pretty doubtful coming from the standpoint of someone who has done bodywork. Not only are most things like this obvious due to rust on some spots vs. no rust/less rust but also different paint transfers and the general angle of damage, some or all of which may apply depending on this particular situation. I'd think most adjusters would know this also.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Motronic posted:That's pretty doubtful coming from the standpoint of someone who has done bodywork. Not only are most things like this obvious due to rust on some spots vs. no rust/less rust but also different paint transfers and the general angle of damage, some or all of which may apply depending on this particular situation. I'd think most adjusters would know this also. My mechanic said to me in full view of the adjuster "hey looks like you've got scrapes and dings, we'll buff those out too" but my mechanic and adjuster both had greased back hair, gold chains, a wifebeater, and appeared to be identical twins so ymmv
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Just talking super generally about torts, the question is: "How much are the damages to your vehicle?" in other words, "how much does it cost to get my car back to where it was before the accident?" If the answer to that question is different based on the nature and location of previous damage, then the $amount changes accordingly. If someone cracks your bumper to a degree that it would take $500 to fix, then your damages are $500. If, on your way to the body shop, you get rear ended again, and it will still cost $500 to get back to new, then you technically have no damages from the second accident. The reality is that you have some harm to your car from the second accident - but its nominal because you're just as far away from being whole as you were before the second accident. As a practical matter, however, the adjuster is likely to say, "gently caress it, its too complicated to try and delineate between old and new damages, and determine the difference between the two, etc., and just pay the whole claim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Motronic posted:That's pretty doubtful coming from the standpoint of someone who has done bodywork. Not only are most things like this obvious due to rust on some spots vs. no rust/less rust but also different paint transfers and the general angle of damage, some or all of which may apply depending on this particular situation. I'd think most adjusters would know this also. I guess I can see that especially for bodywork. My mind was going to more mechanical damage. I'm not necessarily gonna give adjusters the benefit of the doubt here. I think it's gonna depend a lot on how much your mechanic likes you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Just talking super generally about torts, the question is: "How much are the damages to your vehicle?" in other words, "how much does it cost to get my car back to where it was before the accident?" So when you talking about getting the car "back to where it was", is that purely in dollars, or does it consider functionality? Let's say the bumper after the first accident was unfixable but mostly-functional ($500 from whole). Then the second accident rips the bumper off entirely (still $500 from whole). Are they obligated to get you a mostly-functional bumper?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
sullat posted:As a public sector lawyer it doesn't matter to you, but the real holding in Pennoyer is "always get a retainer". This is why I win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
MonkeyBot posted:I guess I can see that especially for bodywork. My mind was going to more mechanical damage. I'm not necessarily gonna give adjusters the benefit of the doubt here. I think it's gonna depend a lot on how much your mechanic likes you. If it was compromised enough to need serious MECHANICAL work it shouldn't be on the road to begin with and you have what my non-lawyerly-self would think could be a whole other issue of operating an unsafe vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:So when you talking about getting the car "back to where it was", is that purely in dollars, or does it consider functionality? We are talking about the old-school concept of "torts" generally, from whence every state has grown their own individual bushes of motor-vehicle negligence liability. Tort of Negligence Driver... - had a Duty [ to drive safely] - Breached that duty [drove recklessly] - Caused Damages [smashed your car] In magic, hypothetical land, if your car goes from 4 wheels, to 3 wheels, and someone's Negligence causes you to lose another wheel, then the Damages Caused is the loss of the 3rd wheel down to the second. Even if the accident would have caused you to go from 4 wheels to 2, because there wasn't a 4th wheel to lose, he didn't Cause Damage to the non-existstent 4th wheel. the Damages Caused are the difference between 2 and 3 wheels. Good luck making this concept work outside of magic, hypothetical land. Thats why we have insurance adjusters, mechanics, and common sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
and punitive damages 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:and punitive damages Or exemplary damages plus treble damages
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
You guys like judicial smackdowns of attorneys, right? http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03111501lmb.pdf The case was remanded for appointment of "competent" appellate counsel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:Or exemplary damages plus treble damages throw in an unfair trade practices claim. just because.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 15:25
|
|