|
Cocoa Ninja posted:Living in LA, the dog / shelter culture is absurd. I totally dig the idea of "no kill" shelters and making sure adopters aren't crazy, but when our city has a homeless population of 50,000 people it seems a little misplaced how people lose their poo poo over perceived mistreatment of animals. Add to that the abused fighting / guard animals who "only need extra love" (false) and this place is hosed, animal wise. No kill shelters are a farce anyways, if they have to put an animal down they will just give it to a place that does.
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
Fun Friday hypothetical. I was told this was a true story and it seems like a legitimate nightmare scenario for all parents of teenagers. This happened in Highland Park, TX - notable because everyone is wealthy. A kid, let's say Cody, has a few kids over to spend the night and in the middle of the night they sneak out and take Cody's parents' car, with Cody driving. He gets into an accident that kills a passenger. Cody is at fault. He is 15 and without a license. The first claim is that the deceased passenger's parents successfully sued Cody's parents for hundreds of thousands of dollars. It seems suspicious to me because I would expect the total to be limited to actual damages (i.e. medical care, funeral, and what have you), but the claim was well beyond that. How much liability to Cody's parents have here? The second claim is that the parents' insurance didn't cover any of the damages or help with the defense because Cody wasn't a licensed driver. Seems reasonable. I'm only thinking about this because it seems like a scenario where a well-meaning family can be instantly bankrupted without any way of really protecting themselves short of locking up their car keys at night.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:No kill shelters are a farce anyways, if they have to put an animal down they will just give it to a place that does. A friend of mine volunteered at one. When he found out what they really do he posted it on Facebook. He wax quite upset. They got their lawyer to send him a takedown notice. They really don't want you to know that no kill doesn't mean what you think.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:Fun Friday hypothetical. I was told this was a true story and it seems like a legitimate nightmare scenario for all parents of teenagers. This happened in Highland Park, TX - notable because everyone is wealthy. You can get supplemental insurance to cover things like this. Parents are more or less liable for the actions of their children.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:You can get supplemental insurance to cover things like this. Parents are more or less liable for the actions of their children. I guess the real crux of my question was whether punitive damages would apply in this situation.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:I guess the real crux of my question was whether punitive damages would apply in this situation. IANAL, but the suit would probably be for "wrongful death." That's where the millions are going to come into play.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:IANAL, but the suit would probably be for "wrongful death." That's where the millions are going to come into play. Only in regards to mental anguish. A jury can do whatever the hell they want for mental anguish and pain and suffering. No lost wages for parents.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Just because it was allegedly hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn't mean the verdict included punitive damages. That doesn't seem like that extravagant of a verdict for the wrongful death of a teenage kid.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:I guess the real crux of my question was whether punitive damages would apply in this situation. No, no punitive damages, punitive damages are rarely awarded and never awarded in these types of cases. Most likely they are filing some sort of wrongful death suit and the jury has awarded the parents damages like economic damages (loss of earning potential from the kid).
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:I guess the real crux of my question was whether punitive damages would apply in this situation. Depends on the State. In CA wrongful death plaintiffs (heirs) are not entitled to punitive damages, but the estate (survival action) is. The burden is much higher and you typically aren't going to get punitives in a case like this (Punitive damages are very difficult to get in negligence cases). The real damages come in when you look at the age of whoever was killed. A 30 year old doctor making 250k a year could end up costing you tens of millions when you project what he would have earned over his lifetime. Pain and suffering would not generally be a huge award in a situation like this, unless the guy wasn't killed instantly and you could argue how much he suffered etc before he did finally pass. There are typically very huge fights in these types of cases, one side will argue killed instantly, the other will argue for some amount of time, because unlike economic damages, these are not so easily defined and are left up to the jury to arbitrarily assign a number to.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:A friend of mine volunteered at one. When he found out what they really do he posted it on Facebook. He wax quite upset. They got their lawyer to send him a takedown notice. They really don't want you to know that no kill doesn't mean what you think. Did he take it down?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
White1ce posted:No, no punitive damages, punitive damages are rarely awarded and never awarded in these types of cases. Most likely they are filing some sort of wrongful death suit and the jury has awarded the parents damages like economic damages (loss of earning potential from the kid). The parents don't have the right to money the kid would earn in the future so how is it damaging them?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:Fun Friday hypothetical. 1) Texas Standard Auto Insurance Policy does not cover unlicensed household members (i.e. children). You give the keys to your kid without a license, he is liable for any damages he causes. 2) Parents are liable for the torts of their minor children, generally. Your kid causes damage, you pay. 3) Wrongful Death + property damages = hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not sure what the cap is here in Texas, but I recall it being approximately $350,000.00. You may also have a claim for "negligent entrustment of a vehicle." In any event, you don't need punitive damages to get to hundreds of thousands. 4) Attorneys fees awarded in personal injury cases don't count towards the damages cap. So if you get the statutory maximum of ~$350K or whatever it is, and you spent $100,000 in attorneys fees, you get those too. 5) The child's estate assumes the right to prosecute the wrongful death action, and the parents are the beneficiaries of the estate. So, they get whatever money the estate wins against the tortfeasor. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 03:50 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Howdy! Question for you guys. I live in a rental home. One day a truck pulled up and put a For Sale sign in my yard. Called the property management people, they knew nothing about it so they called the owner. Next thing I hear from the property people is that the house is indeed for sale but probably won't mean anything any time soon, that this is common. Next we get a call from the maintenance guy with the property people telling us the realtor people are coming to show the house to prospective buyers, and that he would keep an eye on them. I leave the house for this. Next, the maintenance guy tells us that the owners want us out at the end of our next lease, which is the last day of June. Though we haven't received anything in writing. Meanwhile, I look at the listing of the house we rent online and there are photos of my Tv, my ps3, ps4, xbox, electronic drumset, guitar, laptop, and pretty much everything else I own up for public view along with my address obviously. Again, I've had no communication from the owner or the realtor. Anything I know is second-hand from the property management folks who have now been cut out of the loop entirely. Even though all the other stuff about lack of notice has me annoyed, the photos of my belongings posted online without consent or permission is my primary concern. We immediately contacted one of the agents selling the house and explained our anger with having our stuff posted online, to which she basically said "We have peoples stuff in our online photos all the time, they cover it up if they don't want it seen." to which we explained that we aren't selling the house, we just live here and pay our loving rent. We asked them to be taken down but it hasn't happened after a week and most likely won't happen. Do I have any legal backing to demand the photos be taken down? I sent an email explaining they could come back and retake them and I'll move or cover my belongings but haven't received a reply. They are treating us like a nuisance and ignoring us but I'll go above their heads if I have to. I see nothing in the lease about photographs, only stuff about showing the house to buyers with notice. I live in Indiana if that matters. Also, is there any legal reason I can't stay at home naked with scat porn playing on the big-screen while they show the home?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
If you're under lease and you want to be a big dick, go for it. You can refuse to have other people come through your house which effectively makes it so your landlord can't show the house. If you are nice enough to let the people in to view the house you can be naked and watch scat porn if you'd like, you are leasing the property and don't have to let any of those people in if you don't want to. As for suing the the people to take down pictures of your stuff, good luck, by the time anything got to court it would be moot and you would already be out of there making the case worthless; not to mention the time and energy it would take to do so. If I were you, just refuse to let him show the place while you still live there.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
The key here is the lease. The landlord has access per the exact terms of the lease. Beyond that, it's only with your consent. Read da lease.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Hi, I apologize if the answer to this question is super obvious, but I think I need some peace of mind. State is WA. Hypothetically, overnight a neighbor backed into my car and did some minor damage. They left a note with their number, and when we spoke they said they'd rather not go through insurance, and were extremely apologetic and cooperative. Should I get a police report anyway, or just try to work things out without them?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:1) Texas Standard Auto Insurance Policy does not cover unlicensed household members (i.e. children). You give the keys to your kid without a license, he is liable for any damages he causes. Texas doesn't have a damages cap on negligence and attorneys fees aren't awarded in negligence suits in Texas. The only parental liability I know of is in the family code, which allows for recovery of up to $25k in property damage for negligent conduct by the parents of that child that caused the incident. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 06:43 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Lovelyn posted:Hi, I apologize if the answer to this question is super obvious, but I think I need some peace of mind. State is WA. How well do you know the neighbor? In my neighborhood where I lived for 20 years as did virtually all of my neighbors, almost certainly I'd do it with cash. Remember that a reported accident could show up on a carfax and ding you. Some skeezy person I don't know? Police report.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Texas doesn't have a damages cap on negligence and attorneys fees aren't awarded in negligence suits in Texas. I was way off - I'm reading a cap on all damages in a wrongful death action is actually up to 1.8 million, sans medical bills. ( holy poo poo, I'm in the wrong practice!) I'm also seeing a negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle claim is another way to get parental liability for the death, and "breach of a duty to control/failure to warn." I also see some theory under a general failure to supervise. The last two may be the same thing. The only real point I was making was that its totally plausible that these parents got a big rear end judgment against them because their kid killed another kid.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
White1ce posted:If you're under lease and you want to be a big dick, go for it. You can refuse to have other people come through your house which effectively makes it so your landlord can't show the house. If you are nice enough to let the people in to view the house you can be naked and watch scat porn if you'd like, you are leasing the property and don't have to let any of those people in if you don't want to. As for suing the the people to take down pictures of your stuff, good luck, by the time anything got to court it would be moot and you would already be out of there making the case worthless; not to mention the time and energy it would take to do so. If I were you, just refuse to let him show the place while you still live there. The whole allowing people in the house thing is annoying but ok with me, it is in the lease that I allow them to show the house to buyers if I'm given reasonable notice, I haven't done anything to hinder that. And I don't intent to sue over the photos as I don't have a lawyer. But if there is a precedent of something like this and I can prove it to be illegal or at least against the rules of the realty company then I can go above his head or contact the local overseers or whatever. I guess it's probably a thing that doesn't have any specific law regarding it. I feel I was being reasonable in asking them to take them down and offering to give them another chance to take photos. I was just kidding obviously about being childish while they show the home, I've stayed out of their way and tried to at least tidy up before they come over even though I have no reason to. I prefer to keep things peaceful for both our benefit, but their approach has been to treat us like we're just an inconvienience to them selling the house, and completely ignoring us. They even complained to the maintanence guy who was keeping an eye on them while they showed the house about the fact that they couldn't get good pictures because the house is occupied. I think that's the reason they want us out of the house honestly, so they can get good pictures. It's a duplex and chances are whoever buys the house is just going to re-rent it out anyway. I digress, they have money and I don't so I guess I just have to let them slide up in my rear end and hope I don't get robbed. woozle wuzzle posted:The key here is the lease. The landlord has access per the exact terms of the lease. Beyond that, it's only with your consent. Read da lease. Yeah I looked through the lease, it just says I have to allow them access if they need to show the home to prospective buyers, it doesn't say anything about taking pictures or posting them online, I supposed that could fit under the definition of "showing" the home. All I'm concerned with is the thousands of dollars of my property they've posted online and the specific locations of my house to find them. Everyone knows the houses in my area are almost 100 years old and easy to get into, there is a lot of break ins around here, which I've avoided by being extremely careful but this just puts me in harms way as far as I'm concerned and I have no control over it. Maybe I'll offer to send them new photos myself without my stuff in the pictures, again I'm trying to be peaceful if not helpful even though they're essentially giving me a month to completely pack, find a new place, and move for 2 people. Jaypeeh fucked around with this message at 14:10 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
Jaypeeh posted:All I'm concerned with is the thousands of dollars of my property they've posted online and the specific locations of my house to find them. There is probably better than a 50% chance that any house with a 15-30 yr old male has a tv, gaming console or two, and an electric guitar. If they're somehow higher than average quality items, renters insurance most likely covers theft. You do have renters insurance, right? I mean you can just ask them to come back and take pictures after you move some things.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:There is probably better than a 50% chance that any house with a 15-30 yr old male has a tv, gaming console or two, and an electric guitar. If they're somehow higher than average quality items, renters insurance most likely covers theft. You do have renters insurance, right? I mean you can just ask them to come back and take pictures after you move some things. Yeah I realize this, and I am insured, but I'd rather not have criminals entering my house, especially with my girlfriend living here as well and sometimes alone. There is a lot of crime in my area so anything that makes me an easier/more appealing target is troubling. Aside from that I just wondered what rights I have regarding my stuff being published online without consent. I emailed the agent and offered to re-take the photos myself without my stuff and send them to him -or- let him re-take them himself. I'm trying to be helpful but I'm getting no response so if I have any leverage I'd like to know so I can utilize it. They really just don't want to deal with us since we're just inconveniencing them but I feel like I should at least be treated like a person. Anyway thanks for your advice guys, I'll figure it out from here.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
You're vastly overestimating the amount of planning that goes into your average home robbery. Your house exists; if somebody wanted to smash into it that's all they need to know. Unless your priceless Van Gogh is in the pictures, don't worry about it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:You're vastly overestimating the amount of planning that goes into your average home robbery. Your house exists; if somebody wanted to smash into it that's all they need to know. True, the planning in most smash and grabs is checking for easy escape route and that no there's probably no one home. However, there are also a lot of "acquaintance" robberies where a dick head has been a guest of some sort and decides he really needs a particular something in the house. It could be anything - including a guitar or game concole. It's easy to tell the difference because the smash and grabbers are all business, work in a pattern, and leave a huge mess. The others tend to grab what they want and then maybe rummage around a bit. Anyways... There is a chance that "prospective buyers" might come to steal something, but they'd have to be really amateur because their time would be better spent casing expensive homes with better stuff to steal.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Jaypeeh posted:Aside from that I just wondered what rights I have regarding my stuff being published online without consent. None.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Thanks guys, I was being a bit over-reactive because finding out i had a month to pack up, move, and find a new place got me pretty riled up. And then seeing my electronic drum set and my ps4 and other prized possessions next to a window posted in the internet really put me over the top. It was more the principal of it, I just wish they had given me a phone call first and I would have gotten it all covered up. I'm still stressed about moving but I'll focus my energy on packing rather than fighting an impossible fight. Appreciate the help!
Jaypeeh fucked around with this message at 19:53 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
DMCA takedown on the basis that the particular arrangement of things on his shelf is protected by copyright and the listing photos are a derivative work thereof 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:DMCA takedown on the basis that the particular arrangement of things on his shelf is protected by copyright and the listing photos are a derivative work thereof Hah, I didn't mention the fact that I'm an artist on the side, and one if the photos shows some original artwork I made for a show next month. Maybe I'll file for copyright on them as an ace up my sleeve to get the photos down. Unrelated question: how does copyright work? ..just kidding folks, I think I can live with it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Lovelyn posted:Hi, I apologize if the answer to this question is super obvious, but I think I need some peace of mind. State is WA. Not a lawyer, but am I the only one that finds it hilarious when people post something that clearly obviously happened/is happening to them and then put "hypothetically" at the beginning? It seriously makes me laugh every time.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
beejay posted:Not a lawyer, but am I the only one that finds it hilarious when people post something that clearly obviously happened/is happening to them and then put "hypothetically" at the beginning? It seriously makes me laugh every time. Many of the lawyers in this thread feel more comfortable answering things phrased as a hypothetical, even if they are obviously not hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:DMCA takedown on the basis that the particular arrangement of things on his shelf is protected by copyright and the listing photos are a derivative work thereof If they moved the items next to the window, then they created the art. If the guy normally leaves his stuff next to the window, why would he be complaining about a picture of it on the interwebs?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
chemosh6969 posted:If they moved the items next to the window, then they created the art. If the guy normally leaves his stuff next to the window, why would he be complaining about a picture of it on the interwebs? What, you can't leave an art next to the window all the time?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Sefer posted:Many of the lawyers in this thread feel more comfortable answering things phrased as a hypothetical, even if they are obviously not hypothetical. As a lawyer, I'm under no illusions that saying "hypothetically" and then going into specifics somehow makes it hypothetical. Besides, almost very thing we say in this thread is really just legal information. We almost never give actual legal advice. Half the time it's "lawyer up you're hosed," or "no practical legal recourse"
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:The parents don't have the right to money the kid would earn in the future so how is it damaging them? If there is no will and the intestate succession gives the property to the parents, they would recover. Presuming a jurisdiction that has an appropriate survival statute.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
I've been playing a logo identification game on my iphone on and off for a while, and today I started wondering... is there actually some sort of "fair use" doctrine that means someone can just use the company's logos in their game, or is it just kind of a "hope you don't get sued for trademark infringement" sort of thing? Or of course paying the companies for the right to use their logo.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I've been playing a logo identification game on my iphone on and off for a while, and today I started wondering... is there actually some sort of "fair use" doctrine that means someone can just use the company's logos in their game, or is it just kind of a "hope you don't get sued for trademark infringement" sort of thing? Or of course paying the companies for the right to use their logo. Google nominative fair use.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Google nominative fair use. Cool, thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:What, you can't leave an art next to the window all the time? Uhhhhh...then anyone could look at it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
How do I shop for a lawyer? So far I've been doing web searches which mostly give me yelp reviews, but this feels like a rather primitive method. I'm particularly looking in San Francisco, but it's a broad question.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 08:27
|
|
