|
Not referring to the goons dog case but a general idea is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accord_and_satisfaction If one were to get sufficient accord and satisfaction, that can be a valid defense in future suits
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:18 |
|
|
Are contracts or settlements between people without the involvement of a lawyer treated differently in court than if lawyers were involved or are they held to the same standard? Does this depend on both the judge and the court, small claims or not, along with the severity of the issue?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 21:10
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Not referring to the goons dog case but a general idea is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accord_and_satisfaction The real risk id be worried about is a settlement being used as an admission your dog bit someone being used the next time to declare it a dangerous dog that needs to be put down, not a follow up claim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 21:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The real risk id be worried about is a settlement being used as an admission your dog bit someone being used the next time to declare it a dangerous dog that needs to be put down, not a follow up claim. That’s a good point Dog law is a real thing by the way
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 21:25
|
|
|
Say I hypothetically gene spliced a dog to have turkey wings. It then bites someone. Does this fall under DOG LAW or BIRD LAW? For jurisdiction let’s assume this occurs during a naval salvage operation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 21:30
|
|
|
It depends if your animal can reproduce with dogs or turkeys
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 21:35
|
|
|
But you can always default to fish law in those cases as all tetrapods are fish
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 21:36
|
|
|
one of the funniest things you have to learn for the FL bar is that if you have posted a sign that includes the phrase "BAD DOG" (specifically, it must have those two words in that order) on your property and your dog then bites someone on your property, you aren't liable it seems mean to the dogs though 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It depends if your animal can reproduce with dogs or turkeys It’ll reproduce in conjunction with any host, a la Alien. I mean it would, if it existed. Because this is a hypothetical. Haha. Unrelated question: if a naval salvage crew was impregnated by a mutant turkeydog, do we need to be concerned with who has custody of the child that burst out of his chest or nah?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
euphronius posted:But you can always default to fish law in those cases as all tetrapods are fish NO this is terrible advice, almost every country practices the lung/gill divide. And don't you loving start it with loving lungfish WE HAVE BEEN TROUGH THIS A HUNDRED TIMES EUPHRONIOUS
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:It’ll reproduce in conjunction with any host, a la Alien. I mean it would, if it existed. Because this is a hypothetical. Haha. Is there a "if it breaks you, you bought it" legal clause out there that might apply? Nonexistence posted:We do whichever is cheaper, which normally shakes out to doing it in house for rote filings over one or a few years and farming out more complex stuff or if nothing/crap was filed by the trustee/executor for years before they approach us, or if we're in/anticipating litigation and want to use them as an expert. Speaking from the other end, most of the ones I've seen are "Here, take care of this yourself Mr. Executor, here's the info a tax preparer would need" (the second part of that statement varying in accuracy of course). MadDogMike fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Feb 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
eke out posted:one of the funniest things you have to learn for the FL bar is that if you have posted a sign that includes the phrase "BAD DOG" (specifically, it must have those two words in that order) on your property and your dog then bites someone on your property, you aren't liable Open and obvious hazard. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
euphronius posted:all tetrapods are fish And fish are not tangible objects, according to the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
And capybaras are fish, according to the Catholic church.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:And capybaras are fish, according to the Catholic church. Also beaver and alligator.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:And capybaras are fish, according to the Catholic church. And it's ok to eat fish because they don't have any feelings according to Nirvana
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
nm posted:And it's ok to eat fish because they don't have any feelings according to Nirvana Fish don’t exist according to fish biologists so they probably don’t mind either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 10:30
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Dog law is a real thing by the way I knew an attorney that "saved a dog from the death penalty" one time by filing a bunch of motions and poo poo for the owners after a bite and fighting it forever until the city just gave up, and then the clients got the bill and were like "HOLY gently caress we would have just let them kill the dog, why didn't you tell us it would be this expensive!!!?@?" and then the dog bit someone else and got put down, lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
At the end of December I was the middle car in a three-car accident in Florida, got rear-ended and pushed into the car in front of me. I had liability only, and the person that rear-ended me has lovely high-risk insurance (United Auto). I had a personally recommended lawyer help me out with the claim so far, from what I understand their MO is that they help their clients with the property damage part of their claim, which most lawyers don't, in hope that they can find a way to recover more money through bodily injury or something else. They just basically cut me loose and said that they don't think there's any money to be made here, although they'll still answer any questions I have regarding property damage. I can't get a hold of the adjuster (my lawyer gave them permission to speak to me, so that's not the issue), this information comes from a rep, so it may be unreliable. Right now, the case stands as this: United estimated my car to be a total loss, worth 14k. Their insured has a property damage limit of 10k, which additionally has to be split between my vehicle and the vehicle I rear-ended. The vehicle in front of me was not heavily damaged, so I'm not too worried about that reduction although I know even small body work can be surprisingly high. United is waiting on the front car's insurance to give them the damage estimate, as well as a statement from their own insured who apparently is avoiding their calls. Do I have any reasonable recourse that will be worth my time to recover the gap between the payout and the value of the car? I asked my lawyer about suing the person directly, but they said they don't do that because it's usually not worth their time, although I'm welcome to look for a second opinion. A time sensitive issue is that I'm paying rent on a storage unit to keep the wrecked car in, and my rent is coming up at the end of February, and obviously this won't be over by then. So I asked the rep if I could sell my car to a salvage yard, and this is where they told me what sounds like some loving bullshit. They said that if they do not take possession the car (and she's not even sure if they will offer to take it or not once it's all over), my payout will be reduced by the estimated salvage value of the car. What the gently caress? If my car was worth 14k before the accident and (let's say) 1k as scrap, they still owe me 13k of damages or the max, not (the_max - salvage_value). Is this how it works? Am I misunderstanding something? Is the rep wrong? I guess maybe I'm misunderstanding and what they mean is that, if they take the car, then the payout would be (the_max + salvage_value), and if I get rid of it, the payout would be (the_max). Ugh I hate dealing with this poo poo so much I'll get full coverage from now on. Even if myself and my parents combined saved more money over the 17 years of my life that I've had liability only than this costs me, this headache just isn't loving worth it. feelix fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Feb 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
When your car is declared a total loss, they are essentially buying the corpse of the car from you. So yes, if you sell the corpse of the car for salvage, that money gets counted against what you would receive. https://www.valuepenguin.com/what-total-loss-car-insurance
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
Devor posted:When your car is declared a total loss, they are essentially buying the corpse of the car from you. So yes, if you sell the corpse of the car for salvage, that money gets counted against what you would receive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:02
|
|
|
feelix posted:But the logical thing would be to make that reduction before applying the maximum payout limit, do you see what I'm saying? Ignoring the third vehicle for now, if they have a limit of 10k and they take a corpse worth 1k off my hands that was formerly worth 14k, they should pay me 11k. Again, maybe that's how it actually works, the reps are clueless and I can't get a hold of the adjuster it feels like the problem with your logic is that the thing that matters here is not your loss but the policy limit what they owe you is a maximum of 10k (disregarding the third party claimant to the same pool of money) and insurance companies would not be insurance companies for long if they gave people 10% more than their policy says they owe on a regular basis. eke out fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Feb 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:10
|
|
|
Devor posted:When your car is declared a total loss, they are essentially buying the corpse of the car from you. So yes, if you sell the corpse of the car for salvage, that money gets counted against what you would receive. This matches my experience with my insurance after I totaled my car through my own fault. But if someone else totals your car, I'm not sure their insurance also gets to keep your car after paying you. I'd be curious to find out. Preferably not by experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:10
|
|
|
eke out posted:it feels like the problem with your logic is that you think your loss is $14k and any extra money should be applied to that loss, but the actual thing that matters is not your loss but the policy limit And you are free to go after the almost certainly judgement-proof person for any amount of your loss in excess of that $10k in civil court. You won't get anywhere. This is one of those "I won! I got a judgement." only to find out there is absolutely no way to collect on the judgement in any meaningful way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
eke out posted:it feels like the problem with your logic is that you think your loss is $14k and any extra money should be applied to that loss, but the actual thing that matters is not your loss but the policy limit My loss is 13k, because I had a thing worth 14k and now I have a thing worth 1k. I should be allowed to take the 10k limit and keep the thing worth 1k, it's nonsense (I believe you that's how it works, but it's still nonsense) that I must also surrender the thing worth 1k or reduce the payout that's already less than my loss by that much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
if you have UIM coverage that covers property damage, that can likely be applied in situations like this -- it's insurance that you pay for that kicks in when another party causes you a loss that exceeds their insurance coverage but i don't think it's commonly carried, most uninsured motorist coverage is about personal injury
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
Motronic posted:And you are free to go after the almost certainly judgement-proof person for any amount of your loss in excess of that $10k in civil court. You won't get anywhere. This is one of those "I won! I got a judgement." only to find out there is absolutely no way to collect on the judgement in any meaningful way. Thanks, this is basically what I was hoping to hear. It loving sucks but I just want this to be over without feeling like I left money on the table. Especially since this is a person that is probably not well-off considering their insurance company and the fact that they're ducking calls.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
eke out posted:if you have UIM coverage that covers property damage, that can likely be applied in situations like this -- it's insurance that you pay for that kicks in when another party causes you a loss that exceeds their insurance coverage I do not, I had literally the cheapest policy that Progressive sells that allows me to drive legally. Like I said, maybe realistically I saved money by being insured like that my whole life but my sanity is worth way more than I could have possibly saved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:20
|
|
|
feelix posted:Especially since this is a person that is probably not well-off considering their insurance company That's why I'm starting out with the assumption that they are judgement proof. People with assets to protect tend to carry sufficient insurance to protect their assets. I suppose it's worth looking into just in case, but it's unlikely to help. Edit: to your above post: you are not doing this. You should start carrying sufficient insurance for your vehicle at least. If you own anything else you probably want to make sure you have some sane policy limits for driving and any other type of liability you may incur. Motronic fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Feb 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
Motronic posted:That's why I'm starting out with the assumption that they are judgement proof. People with assets to protect tend to carry sufficient insurance to protect their assets. Yeah I just looked up the definition of judgement proof, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:22
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Edit: to your above post: you are not doing this. You should start carrying sufficient insurance for your vehicle at least. If you own anything else you probably want to make sure you have some sane policy limits for driving and any other type of liability you may incur. Yeah my rear end in a top hat puckered a little bit when I thought about whether I'd be judgement-proof if I hit one of the Porsches driving around Miami. Could they take my IRA? That's the only place I have any significant assets E: looks like retirement accounts are judgement-proof so I can crash into all the lambos i want feelix fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Feb 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:28
|
|
|
Legal Questions: I can crash into all the lambos i want
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 02:40
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I knew an attorney that "saved a dog from the death penalty" one time by filing a bunch of motions and poo poo for the owners after a bite and fighting it forever until the city just gave up, and then the clients got the bill and were like "HOLY gently caress we would have just let them kill the dog, why didn't you tell us it would be this expensive!!!?@?" Don't leave us in suspense: were they able to collect their bill? Grip it and rip it fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Feb 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Don't leave us in suspense: were they able to collect their bill? HAHA, yeah he sued them
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I knew an attorney that "saved a dog from the death penalty" one time by filing a bunch of motions and poo poo for the owners after a bite and fighting it forever until the city just gave up, and then the clients got the bill and were like "HOLY gently caress we would have just let them kill the dog, why didn't you tell us it would be this expensive!!!?@?" lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:HAHA, yeah he sued them I love stories with a happy ending
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
Who would win in a lawyer fight: Dog Law or Tree Law?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
Bird Law
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
Horse law is another good one
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:18 |
|
|
what would be better: Pegasus law (bird / horse) or griffin law (bird / exotic pet)
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 00:15
|
|
