|
Pfft. Doctors. Doctors are idiots. There's no telling what kind of permanent injuries he might have. You might have to wait on him hand and foot for the rest of his natural life. That's the downside. Now, here's the good part! You can ching-ching-ching cash in on this tragedy! . . . The state bar forbids me from promising you a big cash settlement, but just between you and me, I promise you a big cash settlement. My fee is 50%.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:51 |
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:I can say it's taken a lot of restraint to keep from going "ME ME ME CALL ME JESUS CALL ME." That's how most lawyers would see the case. Dallas. Sure, I'll run him by you  It's funny you say that, the advice we got was to sit tight for a bit until "there's something to contest," which seemed really weird to me considering how often I read "get a laywer" on SA  . At this point it's up to him and his family how to proceed, he knows I support him getting his current and future bills covered. If he wants to go for more, well that's his call.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
You don't rush into a personal injury claim until you are fully aware of the extent of the injuries.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
2DEG posted:Dallas. Sure, I'll run him by you Oh man. I know all those guys, I'm pretty active in the trial lawyer's association. I'll make sure you've got a good recommendation. No, it won't be me, ethics goons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
2DEG posted:the advice we got was to sit tight for a bit until "there's something to contest," He's not going to lose out by waiting, there's no rush. But there's also no reason whatsoever to wait on making the call and determining his rights, insurance, etc. The attorney will wait to proceed until his medical situation is known. I know you're not in a position to push the family and it could come off badly if you did. But if they heeded that advice, it makes me wonder about the decision-making. Making it into a question is loony, because it means there's a possibility they actually won't pursue it. The last part has me scared for you. I want to teleport into his hospital room and force him to dial 1-800-WIN4YOU or whatever the hell it is in Dallas. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Jul 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Holy poo poo that's terrible advice. I've seen incidences where an insurance company will offer to cover someone's medical bills if it's early enough and things look dire enough. It's a good tactic to keep them from getting noneconomic damages that would fully compensate them under the law and it prevents them from getting a lawyer because "they would just take a third of that anyway." The boyfriend and his family SERIOUSLY needs to talk to a lawyer. Most of the 1-800 dudes are mills but I know a few guys that are talented at one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Holy poo poo that's terrible advice. Sorry, the confusion is my fault. What I've been trying to say is that, yeah, in the best case scenario, all his current and future care is taken care of by the insurance companies and there would be no need to sue just for the medical bills if that's all he wanted. That's probably not going to happen. Sorry if the timidness gave you the wrong impression, I don't want to come off as being aggressively out for the stupid kid's blood. However, just to be clear, there's no way we would NOT fight, we just plain can't afford not to. So they will certainly be getting a lawyer. Soon, I promise. And that advice was given pretty early on, before we even had an idea of when he would be discharged, and what option for outpatient care the docs would recommend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
Hey legal thread! So a month ago I got a ticket for drinking coffee on the Metro gold line train in Los Angeles. Because I am an upstanding citizen I promptly lost the ticket. I don't know how much it's for, I don't know how to pay it, and I'm scared I'm going to jail somehow. I don't really know the process since I've never gotten a citation or ticket before. What do I do? Googling is no help, and I can only find the phone number to Metro transit information.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
Lieutenant Dan posted:Hey legal thread! So a month ago I got a ticket for drinking coffee on the Metro gold line train in Los Angeles. Because I am an upstanding citizen I promptly lost the ticket. I don't know how much it's for, I don't know how to pay it, and I'm scared I'm going to jail somehow. I don't really know the process since I've never gotten a citation or ticket before. What do I do? Googling is no help, and I can only find the phone number to Metro transit information. I think here: http://www.metro.net/about/transit-court/ call the number and they should be able to look up your citation, which you can then pay online or over the phone. I think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
Lieutenant Dan posted:Hey legal thread! So a month ago I got a ticket for drinking coffee on the Metro gold line train in Los Angeles. Because I am an upstanding citizen I promptly lost the ticket. I don't know how much it's for, I don't know how to pay it, and I'm scared I'm going to jail somehow. I don't really know the process since I've never gotten a citation or ticket before. What do I do? Googling is no help, and I can only find the phone number to Metro transit information. And watch out if you get a third ticket, it is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90d in jail. (Penal Code Section 640)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 07:30
|
|
|
Lieutenant Dan posted:Hey legal thread! So a month ago I got a ticket for drinking coffee on the Metro gold line train in Los Angeles. Because I am an upstanding citizen I promptly lost the ticket. I don't know how much it's for, I don't know how to pay it, and I'm scared I'm going to jail somehow. I don't really know the process since I've never gotten a citation or ticket before. What do I do? Googling is no help, and I can only find the phone number to Metro transit information. Wait is this really a thing? You can't drink coffee on the LA subways?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 09:56
|
|
|
spregalia posted:Wait is this really a thing? You can't drink coffee on the LA subways? The DC subway system is similar - DC bans the consumption of all food and drink.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 13:41
|
|
|
spregalia posted:Wait is this really a thing? You can't drink coffee on the LA subways? You're not supposed to on the BART either (Bay Area Rapid Transit, where Bay Area refers to San Francisco Bay Area), though I can't recall ever seeing anyone get in trouble for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
ibntumart posted:You're not supposed to on the BART either (Bay Area Rapid Transit, where Bay Area refers to San Francisco Bay Area), though I can't recall ever seeing anyone get in trouble for doing so. Unless you're a minority in Oakland, in which case you get tasered and/or shot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
Ed. Eh, probably best not to leave that floating around.
betaraywil fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Jul 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
I have a rental house. It's been vacant since April, but I've got a new tenant moved in this past weekend. The new tenant called to get the electric in their name, and now the electric company called us to ask who is paying for the electric used between April and now. I guess the A/C was left on (but at a high temp) during those months, but we didn't really go in it until just before the new tenant moved in and the day the old tenant moved out. I kinda think that since the old tenant called the utility company and said "we don't need electric anymore", it's the utility company's problem that they kept delivering their product to the house, and so I shouldn't be on the hook for the bill. Am I wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
So wait, did the previous tenant cancel service and the utility left it on? Also, was the prior tenant's lease up in April?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
The answer is very likely 'you need to pay attention to what utilities your properties are drawing on while you are responsible for them'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
Dogen posted:So wait, did the previous tenant cancel service and the utility left it on? Cancelling service probably means taking it out of the name of the tenant and putting it back in the name of the landlord. Otherwise I would assume the electric company would charge a disconnection and connection fee. Also, there is typically a fixed monthly fee for being connected to the grid that you pay regardless of whether or not you use any electricity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
Dogen posted:So wait, did the previous tenant cancel service and the utility left it on? The previous tenant left prior to their lease being up, but did notify me they had to. But anyway, they called the utility company and had the service removed from their name. Jose Cuervo posted:Cancelling service probably means taking it out of the name of the tenant and putting it back in the name of the landlord. Otherwise I would assume the electric company would charge a disconnection and connection fee. It did not get put back in my name. This, I suppose, is the reason they're asking who the bill should go to for these past months. Apparently it was in some sort of limbo. This utility does have a fixed basic monthly fee for being connected to the grid. They weren't charging that fee to anyone during this time. Thermopyle fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Jul 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
It'll either be you or the previous tenant. In this "limbo" period, who was on the hook for the place? If you accepted their move-out, allowing them to break the lease, then that means you're holding the bag. If you didn't accept their move-out, but they did it anyways and your lease bound them to the house for that time period, then it's the previous tenant who pays. (They might not pay, then I dunno if the power company would go after you?) In the end, the previous tenant did you a favor by not shutting off the power 100%. There are turn-on fees in many places that suck. Plus zero AC in a home in summer can do hosed up things to flooring and appliances (like turning fridges perma-smelly) if it gets pretty hot. Like having the AC turned up to 80 can prevent damage that's way worse than paying that power bill. So that tenant sorta did the right thing, in that shutting off the power could have royally screwed you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
I have a question regarding California sexual harassment law. My fiance was recently victim to hostile work environment variety sexual harassment. She first went to the owner and offered him an opportunity to settle outside of court. They hired a P.I. who they say advised them that the bosses conduct wasn't sexual harassment because he did it to both men and women, therefore it wasn't discriminatory. Is there any salt to this claim, or are they trying to call our bluff? The evidence is very clearly sexual harassment, and she has multiple witnesses corroborating her claims. Their only retort to the accusations were that it's not illegal because he does it to both sexes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
50 pounds of bread posted:I have a question regarding California sexual harassment law. Probably BS. And lawyer up, she should have done that before offering to settle out of court. Seriously, why do people do this poo poo without a lawyer? In this case it probably would have been contingency anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 07:28
|
|
|
50 pounds of bread posted:I have a question regarding California sexual harassment law. Tiny bit of salt to the claim, but might not be enough to protect them, depending on the nature of the harassment. Not a CA-barred lawyer, and haven't done much work in it. That said, In order for conduct to rise to the level of unlawful sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the conduct must be (1) unwelcome, (2) sexual in nature, (3) it must have occurred because of the complainant’s sex, and (4) it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively hostile environment. #3 is the hurdle; but it all depends on the conduct, nature, and targeting. From the Department of Veteran Affairs, OEDCA, Vol.4 No.3 Summer 2001 digest: "A further word of caution is in order. We do not wish to suggest that an individual may inappropriately touch employees and get away with it, as long as he or she does it to both males and females. Although several appellate courts are of the opinion that it is not sexual harassment if the conduct is directed equally against both males and females, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has held, at least in one case, that “equal opportunity harassers” are not immune from Title VII’s prohibitions. At the very least, such behavior would constitute serious misconduct, for which the wrongdoer could and should be punished." Also, the quicker you move on this, the better, as time passage before claim = bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 07:30
|
|
|
50 pounds of bread posted:I have a question regarding California sexual harassment law. Echoing NM's incredulity at her jumping straight to demanding a settlement before talking to a lawyer. What she *should* have done, and should definitely do ASAP, is file a complaint with either the DFEH or the EEOC. She can't sue for sexual harassment in the first place without first doing and then getting a Right to Sue letter from one of them. They both have their own investigative staff, by the way, and in the EEOC's case at least, they offer mediation as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 10:09
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:You don't rush into a personal injury claim until you are fully aware of the extent of the injuries. Which is why you want to get a good attorney quickly, so they can find an IME that they trust that the insurance company is OK with, to minimize haggling over whether you are really hurt or not (and what I mean by this is questions like "does he have herniated discs meriting a permanent/temporary disability, or merely soft tissue damage.) It can be the difference between having long-term medical care covered by diagnosing a permanent partial disability, or getting a couple weeks of physical therapy and that's it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 10:54
|
|
|
I live in a condominium in California that does not allow dogs, we have a service dog that lives with us. The condo association initially just required that we register our dog with them and get a tag, which is fine with me, but now they have decided to start charging a yearly fee for having a service dog. Is that legal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
WhyFoxy posted:I live in a condominium in California that does not allow dogs, we have a service dog that lives with us. The condo association initially just required that we register our dog with them and get a tag, which is fine with me, but now they have decided to start charging a yearly fee for having a service dog. Is that legal? I don't think they can charge you a fee. http://www.hrfh.org/forms/2012_Fair_Housing_Handbook.pdf (pages 16-18) I'm pretty sure the federal side of the Fair Housing Act applies to condo associations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
I have a brief question. I'm about to do some royalty payment based work in which i write content that is then sold. I get paid a percentage fee of profits up to a limit. The contract we're signing is for 3 years and in it I sign over the copyright to the company. At the end of the 3 years, does copyright revert to me given that I stop receiving royalties or would it depend on the contract phrasing? I'm in Australia, but I just wanted a general answer. I'm calling a friend who's a lawyer and asking him to have a look at it, but that'll take time and if the answer is simple I'd rather not bother him/impose on him. Cheers 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 12:32
|
|
|
In the US, it's dictated by the terms of the agreement, but pretty much in an agreement like that it stays with the company. If it doesn't say anything about the copyright being transferred back to you, assume it stays with them. Eventually, in the US, you get a termination right such that you could take back the rights or use the threat to negotiate a better deal, assuming your poo poo is relevant in 30 years. Dunno about Australia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 14:33
|
|
|
UK goon here, I just wanted to query something if anyone had any knowledge here. My apartment had a mould problem around the end of 2011, which we tried to clean up but weren't able to. Anti-mould paint seemed to have been basically half-arsed, so mould was clearly growing in areas the paint was not there. We took photos, contacted estate agency, long story short it took 2 months and a threat to withhold rent to pay for repainting that got them to repaint. Fast-forward to now, 13 days after the end of the tenancy agreement. A week ago they paid us back our deposit, £342 short, for "work done" - 2 doorhandle replacements (irrelevant for now, seperate issue!) and the mould, which they claim was caused by us not heating the flat properly. While its true we didnt usually have the heating on (we're students, we just manned up), I doubt this is the case. Now we're embroiled in an ugly dispute where I've just had to threaten to go into formal dispute resolution, which is a pain in the arse. What I wanted to know is simple: If the landlord can't produce a proper receipt for work (his invoice just says "Work: £342") and we think we have reasonable grounds to say its not our problem (mould went unchecked for ages despite our efforts), will we be able to get the money back?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
Yes, arbitration might be a bit of a pain but seriously it's waay more convenient than actually having to sue your landlord for the money back - the UK statutory system is very much in favour of tenants on this issue. The burden of proof in arbitration is for your landlord to show that the deductions were necessary and proportionate. Not being able to produce a receipt will not do. Mold is a landlord problem, not yours. You've indicated you have most of your stuff documented, the secret to 'on the balance of probabilities' arbitrations is that in a he said/she said situation the person who seems most organised and respectful to the arbitrator is the one who is likely to win.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
Recently I brought my car in to a local garage to get an oil change and an inspection. I am in Texas. The mechanic I spoke to told me that my transmission fluid was low and offered to fill it for $140 or so. I had no problems with my transmission before that time. While driving it home the transmission was shaking v. noticeably. Checked it when I got home and it was almost empty. I'm pretty sure that the mechanic had drained out almost all of the remaining fluid. I went to Pep Boys and bought some transmission fluid to top it off. I think the guy at Pep Boys recommended me the wrong type of fluid as well. My car is being worked on and it looks like it will run me $1000 or more to get it repaired. Do I have any recourse with the garage that drained the tranmission fluid? I can't prove that they did it, so would it make sense to sue them in small claims court? Or write to the state attorney general's office and any other govt offices? While I can't prove it, I'm pretty sure that the 1st garage I went to drained it out. Thanks for any info
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
camels posted:Recently I brought my car in to a local garage to get an oil change and an inspection. I am in Texas. The mechanic I spoke to told me that my transmission fluid was low and offered to fill it for $140 or so. I had no problems with my transmission before that time. While driving it home the transmission was shaking v. noticeably. Checked it when I got home and it was almost empty. I'm pretty sure that the mechanic had drained out almost all of the remaining fluid. I went to Pep Boys and bought some transmission fluid to top it off. I think the guy at Pep Boys recommended me the wrong type of fluid as well. My car is being worked on and it looks like it will run me $1000 or more to get it repaired. Res ipsa?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
A problem you've got is with your attempt at fixing it afterwards. That was the natural thing to do in a society that solves its own problems without suing first. But unfortunately the auto shop can claim that your Pep Boys fix is what *really* caused the problem, and it would be really tough to prove exactly what the mechanic did or didn't do by now. I think it'd be difficult to impossible for you to find a legal remedy. A non-legal route would be confronting the mechanic that you just noticed the transmission was empty and you were scammed and want your money back. Don't mention the fact that you tried to fix it yourself unless you're directly asked on it. He will offer to fix it again. Refuse and say you want your money back. Really, anything you get back is good, so if you end up having to negoiate down to half back that beats nothing. So it depends on your CHA and dice rolls, how much you stick to your guns versus the desperation/attitude of the mechanic, etc. That's no guarantee of any money back, but it's probably your best shot. Sorry for not great news. Incredulous Red posted:Res ipsa? woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Jul 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 06:17
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I think it's rebutted by the Pep Boys fix. Even he admits that the pep boys guy may have told him the wrong thing. Yeah. I misread it and thought it was serviced at the Pep Boys
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
I recently got a DUI a few months back. I am still waiting to have my arraignment. It was scheduled for 3 days after the incident but the prosecution was not there. I live in Seattle, Washington. My question involves my cases status which I can check online. I just checked and my status has changed from disposed to closed. When I go into the "events" section of my case details the most recent event says " CASE CLOSED, OBLIGATIONS CLOSED FOR 90 DAYS " What does this mean? I am doubtful I am off the hook, I figure my lawyer would have called me as this "event" happened on the 7th of July. Does this just mean the case is temporarily closed for 90 days? Why would this happen? I just want to have my arraignment  Anyways, any insight would be nice. I plan to call my lawyer tomorrow, but its late and I am quite curious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 06:45
|
|
|
My best guess is that if it was a blood draw, they don't have the result back and won't arraign you unit then. But I'd ask your lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 07:07
|
|
|
I've been threatened with a civil service case for rent at a place I haven't lived in a while. The backstory. I got desperate and moved in with a couple friends to a house I'd never seen before nearly a year ago. My first week there the other side of the Duplex got shot up (new tenants, just like ourselves). A week later someone tried to steal my car and did 300 dollars in damage. I was sick every day, working a 9 dollar an hour job part time, couldn't fix my car out of fear it'd actually get stolen soon, and pretty depressed. I ended up moving back home with my family. The two friends I moved in with were understanding and knew that if I did stay there I wouldn't have money for rent soon anyway. I had the bills caught up, payed an extra months rent, and forfeited my security deposit (about 350 dollars). I was willing to pay two months rent but we found a subleaser so that worked out. About 8 months later the subleaser leaves and they tell me I have 3 days to pay their rent. I was broke at the time so it didn't even come down to an argument. They found another subleaser, who bounced three checks and is now gone. The housing agency made very clear that we were all responsible for the 1000 dollar a month rent, and that we weren't renting per room. This made me assume that it was an all or none situation, where the only way my credit would get hosed is if they left too. Also I just got leased into a great location so I may be set there anyway. I've since been doing very well financially but not setting back nearly enough due to problems coming in from every direction. I'll be on my own in a month and all that will be gone. Anyway here's the text I received today: Hey you know I'm a nice guy but we have come to the point where we can't keep paying your rent. We have only asked for money from you very few times, even though we pay your rent every month. We have all the information to prove we have paid and you have not. All we are asking for is the last months rent from you. I understand you're going through hard times but so are we. We are prepared and ready to take a civil service case out against you. We have already talked to the leasing agent about that and we have your lease contract which you signed. The last month's rent is 350 dollars. Its not nearly enough money to go to court over but I'm not sure they have a leg to stand on. Also, about being "nice guys," the cable bill, which was in my name, lapsed twice and was set to shut off. I communicated with the provider and they didn't hit my credit or anything and I payed all the late fees and service charges. They refused to turn in the modem so I got billed for that as well. Also, I met the check bouncing fellow a few months ago, as he's a friend of mine. This was before he started bouncing checks. He told me he was living there and intending to pay rent, and I showed him the text I received that day from the other two guys saying no one was living there and I owed them rent. Like I said I've been doing very well financially for about three months but the entire time I've had about an average of 100 dollars a week go to bills someone's hosed me over on or random charges here or there, like a window unit for my room because where I live has a dinosaur AC or 200 bucks to get a worthless immunization to be eligible for college in this state. I list these complaints only to emphasize how frustrating the last few months have been. I'm living in Austin, Tx. I know the first step will be calling the leasing agency and getting a copy of my lease. Then I'll be analyzing to what extent the leasing agency can sue me and what rights my old roommates have. On this note, if they actually have a case, my long time friend has gone off the deep end in his own personal shitstorm and has left me with around 380 dollars of bills to AT@T. If they can sue me on a joint lease I can sue him for sharing an account and not paying his amount, right? The whole notion seems completely retarded to me but I don't want to have to go to court, let alone get this thing blown out of hand, where they hit me for multiple months of rent. When I first started this new job, I was considering setting aside money and telling them that if they couldn't find a subleaser I'd cover the rent, that I hated sticking them with the trouble, and that maybe we could grab a beer some time. Then I got the text along the lines of, "We're not turning in that modem, have fun with the surcharges," and all my empathy vanished. I'm feeling pretty much the same way now. Black Cat fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Jul 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 09:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:51 |
|
|
Ok here's the order of events/priorities: 1. You are likely all equally responsible for all of the rent. No, moving out does not get you off the lease if it was a fixed term. 2. Your housemates can't sue you for your contribution to the rent. What they can do is pay their proportions to the landlord. 3. The landlord can sue all of you for all of the rent and demand payment from whoever he thinks has the money to pay up. That probably not being you. 4. At that point, the guy who's forced by the court to pay can ask the court for equitable contributions from the other tenants. That being you. So yes, your credit is hosed unless the housing agency decided that the rent isn't worth going after. Which they will do. Don't break leases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 11:04
|
|