baquerd posted:

What are the legal terms for the liability incurred when you run over someone's fence with your car? Improper conversion or something like that?

joat mon posted:

As part of your filling us in on the last 2 1/2 years of this saga, please let us know what state the fence was in.

baquerd posted:

It was a sturdy fence with crossbeams. Good wood. It didn't stand up to the U-Haul truck backing into it though. The owner of the fence is a lawyer and he ran out of his house to confront the driver when he heard the truck hit it the second time (the driver didn't realize the fence was hit the first time).

euphronius posted:

It is negligence as has been mentioned.

baquerd posted:

I was just curious if there was some special term.

EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:

If this is important to you, you probably want to pay a real lawyer for this instead of relying on someone who is probably drunk and on oxy who pretends to be a lawyer on the internet for kicks.

JibbaJabberwocky posted:

Is there anyone here who is a lawyer or who has a lot of experience with entertainment contracts and film releases? I've been approached by a studio to appear in a short one-shot pilot on a major network because of one of my hobbies and I would appreciate it if someone who understands film contracts would be able to look it over. I can give more detail if necessary but no specifics for obvious reasons. I've edited out any identifying information in this contract and would appreciate it a lot of any goons would look over it and tell me if it seems legit. I'm also interested to know if you think there any questions I should ask my contact when we Skype on Monday regarding the contract.

I am interested particularly in one section (1.a) in which I "agree to render all services reasonably required with company in connection with the development of" the show. Does this mean they could legally try and force me to take time off of work or in any other way force my hand if I do not wish to appear in a certain way?

Here is the contract:
These are truly massive so I've linked them.

joat mon posted:

In the state/jurisdiction of Oklahoma it would be called "Injury to Personal Property"

e: The fence didn't happen to have gold fringe on it, did it?

baquerd posted:

What are the legal terms for the liability incurred when you run over someone's fence with your car? Improper conversion or something like that?

Space Gopher posted:

I need some advice on disability issues. It's for a friend (no, really) who goes to a public university in the state of Washington.

She suffers from a peanut allergy that can be triggered by airborne particles and put her into a life-threatening situation. At the beginning of the school year, she worked with the university's disability support services, who acknowledged her as disabled, agreed to notify her professors and classmates to not bring peanut products, and put "peanut free zone" signs on the doors of rooms where she had class. As I understand it, it's not really controversial to acknowledge a food allergy that severe as a disability.

A few weeks ago, the campus library (it's a small commuter-oriented branch campus, so there's only one) changed their policy from no-food to food-allowed. She raised the issue with DSS, because the library was basically the only place on campus outside of designated peanut-free classrooms where she could study without the risk of somebody next to her busting out a PB&J, peanut butter crackers, or whatever. It's also the only place on campus with tutoring and certain computing resources. The librarians passed it up the chain, and people up to the director of the library were amenable to making at least part of the library food-free again, until the facilities people came back and said that they couldn't allow that. Not only that, the facilities people have also taken down the "peanut free zone" signs, and told DSS that they can't officially notify students and professors of her disability. My friend is free to speak to her professors and other students, but she's on her own when she does it.

The justification they've given is that it's a liability issue; they wouldn't want to be sued if they said a room was a "peanut free zone" and a student violated the policy and made it dangerous for her. Therefore, they are cutting off all accommodations that were previously offered. She is currently trying to follow up with the higher levels of university administration, but it's been a bureaucratic nightmare; the person from facilities who seems to have made the decision is fairly high up.

I have a couple of legal questions. First, to me as a layman, it seems to me like this is a massive, flashing-alarms ADA violation. Is it? Second, is the "liability issue" here a bunch of bull? And, if it isn't, is there a way she could waive liability so they could (at least in theory) offer formal accommodations again?

Hyzenth1ay posted:

Space Gopher posted:

I need some advice on disability issues. It's for a friend (no, really) who goes to a public university in the state of Washington.

She suffers from a peanut allergy that can be triggered by airborne particles and put her into a life-threatening situation. At the beginning of the school year, she worked with the university's disability support services, who acknowledged her as disabled, agreed to notify her professors and classmates to not bring peanut products, and put "peanut free zone" signs on the doors of rooms where she had class. As I understand it, it's not really controversial to acknowledge a food allergy that severe as a disability.

Hyzenth1ay posted:

Should I seek legal advice?

ibntumart posted:

If you are in the United States, you should contact the EEOC. You will fill out an intake form and speak with an investigator about your options. This does not automatically result in filing suit or even an investigation, by the way. This is just a chance for you to learn about your specific rights and options, including what the EEOC can do.

euphronius posted:

Im not seeing a disability under the ADA there at all. She seems to function fine.

Also your friend needs to call lawyers, not you.

euphronius posted:

Im not seeing a disability under the ADA there at all. She seems to function fine.

Also your friend needs to call lawyers, not you.

Space Gopher posted:

Well, my friend and I are trying to figure out the legal landscape before she gets lawyers involved. Suing a school is a huge hassle she would rather not go through (not to mention all the you'll-never-prove-this passive aggressive retaliation she'd be sure to get) and the ADA only lets you recover legal fees if you win.

agarjogger posted:

I know you all get a lot of roughly-identical, pretty boring "Do I need a lawyer" questions. So with apology, here's one more. If you can't read it all, the tl;dr is does somebody need a lawyer for a public intoxication charge with some irregularities?

After yet another day of highly-unsuccessful jobhunting, my mate got blind drunk on malt liquor on the train home (this is permitted on the commuter train as long as you don't bother anyone). He went to a closed bar, banged on the door, and was shocked and displeased over not being let in to drown himself in more booze. He gives up and goes home, breaks a bunch of jars trying to make himself dinner, and puts on latex gloves in an aborted attempt to clean them all up. Because he's completely out of his mind, he returns to the bar to make obscene gestures at a huge bouncer behind a locked door and trying to get him to come out. It's honestly the drunkest he's ever been in his life. He gives up, tries to leave on his bike, falls over immediately and slices his head open. Two police show up before he gets up, cuff him without drama and sit him down on a bench. Three more cops show up and they're all asking him questions, like why the gently caress he's wearing latex gloves, which he ignores or says that he doesn't know. They're waiting on an ambulance for the kid (24 y/o male with no criminal record). He chides them about sending out six cops to deal with a drunk idiot bicyclist and while most of them laugh, he really pisses off the youngest, shortest-haired of the cops. That one threatens to gently caress up his bicycle as the ambulance doors close. The kid is handed a notice that if he turns up at the bar again, he will be trespassing. And that's it and he is taken to a hospital for the night for a bunch of IV's and CT scans and released in the morning.

The case just turned up on the county website, with one count of violation of village ordinance (DISORDERLY CONDUCT) - PUBLIC INTOXICATION. The ticket says $75, which would seem to indicate a minor violation. Nonetheless the whole thing is worrying. Not a first-time alcohol offender, but the previous offense was expunged b/c juvenile. Afraid of probation, very-expensive alcohol diversion classes, and of a summer month abroad being killed by court dates and community service (which he otherwise doesn't mind because he's a damned good citizen). He's also afraid that the cop who wrote the ticket is the one who has utter contempt for him and will show up to court and recommend the court teach this gently caress a lesson about respect. Jurisdiction is Illinois. Defendant grew up in the town where it happened.

Dude was uncertain that he was under arrest because his rights were never read, but nobody cares what he says since he was trashed. Hire friend's dad, who is an excellent criminal defense attorney, or roll with the court to possibly save $500?

Hyzenth1ay posted:

I'm in the state of Washington, so I will do this.

Any idea what kind of lawyer - specialization? - I should speak with?

Alaemon posted:

I admittedly don't practice in disability law, but given that the standard is "reasonable accommodation" (at least I think it is), putting up "no peanut" signs in a few locations strikes me as a pretty trivial burden.

Despite some of the... vitriol in this thread, it's not asking to create a perfect peanut-free zone. It's asking for some signs to go up to lower the odds of a chance encounter while going about the daily business. And possibly for a section of library to go snack-free if needed.

I REALLY don't understand how putting up "no peanut" signs can create liability where none existed previously. If they heard that from their lawyers, I'd like to read that memo. For my money, the more dangerous scenario is knowing you have a student with a severe allergy and doing nothing about it. The seatbelt analogy used previously was good. The one in my mind is if they had a rickety stairway and they were told they needed to put up a railing for a mobility-limited student. Then they said "no, because that student could slip even with the railing and we'd be on the hook. So we'll just leave the staircase rickety and all will be well."

Having notice of a hazard and deliberately doing nothing about it doesn't limit liability.

Again, this is all me shooting from the hip. I would definitely check about a free consult with a local disability lawyer, but the claim as presented to me doesn't seem at all unreasonable.

(The only reason I can think of a distinction between elementary school and university for this purpose is that elementary school is compulsory. I don't know that it matters at all, but as a hypothesis, I can see having a higher duty of care when handling kids who have no choice but to be there.)

xxEightxx posted:

Sec. 12102. Definition of disability

As used in this chapter:

(1) Disability

The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;

(B) a record of such an impairment; or

(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)).

(2) Major Life Activities

(A) In general

For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.

agarjogger posted:

Dude was uncertain that he was under arrest because his rights were never read, but nobody cares what he says since he was trashed. Hire friend's dad, who is an excellent criminal defense attorney, or roll with the court to possibly save $500?

nm posted:

You understand that speaking to an attorney does not mean that you are suing someone, correct? Seems to still be a massive misconception -- an attorney is the one who will tell you the "legal landscape." A half-hour consult for a few bucks will save a lot of grief.

euphronius posted:

I know the definition. It doesn't meet that as far as I can tell. She isn't substantially limited in her life activities. On Monday I'll look up allegy case law I guess, but latent allergies do not seem to fit at all.

Even if she were disabled, there are types of reasonability stanadards that the school can rely on to deny accommodation. The law isn't going to force the school to ban peanuts or create a school wide peanut free zone or whatever. Even though they appeard to have done that at least partially.

Also this isn't an employment claim at all since she is not employed by the school as far as I can tell. Good luck getting a "free consult" but she is going to most likely pay a lawyer up front to do anything since there is no award here to make a contingent fee agreement possible.

Contacting the EEOC or state equivalent will most likely go nowhere.

42 USC §12132 posted:

Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.

42 USC §12133 posted:

The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 794a of title 29 shall be the remedies, procedures, and rights this subchapter provides to any person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of section 12132 of this title.

29 USC §794a posted:

[...]
(b) In any action or proceeding to enforce or charge a violation of a provision of this subchapter, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.

Alaemon posted:

Very fast Googling suggests that the 2008 ADA Amendments Act expanded the definition of "substantial limitation." Many of the pages seem to contemplate allergies specifically (of course, that's what I'm searching for, so a little bit of result bias there).

Edit: And it looks like there was a settlement between Lesley University for the university's failure to make accommodations for students with food allergies.

http://www.ada.gov/lesley_university_sa.htm

Never you mind posted:

The Lesley settlement is a bit different. It's to provide students with allergies the possibility of an exemption from the otherwise-mandatory meal plan, and to force the school to make some allergen-free meal choices available. A university enforcing peanut-free zones is much more significant accommodation; they could easily argue that this is neither reasonable nor reasonably enforceable. How can the university meaningfully enforce this ban from specific areas that are otherwise open to the public? They never should have put signs up in the first place, because they can't guarantee the safety of the allergic student if they can't keep people from bringing in food or forgetting to wash their hands.

I would be very curious as to what the student with the life-threatening allergy expects the school to reasonably do for her that would give her grounds for suit. This is not about adding a ramp or making doors wide enough for a wheelchair, or not being forced to pay for meals you can't eat, or taking a test in a testing center instead of in the classroom. In a world not full of lawsuits, the school could ask its students and the public to avoid bringing in peanuts. Since they can't guarantee that people will comply, how can they make any implication to the student that they will assume responsibility for her exposure to peanuts?

Sir John Falstaff posted:

Yes, plus it sounds like they arguably have already given a reasonable accommodation. She apparently wanted peanut-free zones in the library "because the library was basically the only place on campus outside of designated peanut-free classrooms where she could study." But "designated peanut-free classrooms" sounds a lot like a "reasonable accommodation" to me. (There is apparently some concern about access to certain tutoring/computing resources which may be more of an issue, but may also not require creating designated peanut-free zones in a library open to the public.)

Space Gopher posted:

Well, at this point they've taken away the peanut-free classrooms; there are no accommodations for her any more. And she can't always stay in the peanut-free rooms, because there are other classes that use them when she's between classes.

Space Gopher posted:

Well, at this point they've taken away the peanut-free classrooms; there are no accommodations for her any more. And she can't always stay in the peanut-free rooms, because there are other classes that use them when she's between classes.