|
euphronius posted:Police reports are generally not admissible evidence in civil accidents That's interesting. Why? Wouldn't the police report that found that X driver failed to give way to Y be kind of a key part of the case? Or would that only be used if the police were pressing charges against one of the drivers?
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:That's interesting. Why? Wouldn't the police report that found that X driver failed to give way to Y be kind of a key part of the case? Or would that only be used if the police were pressing charges against one of the drivers? It’s hearsay and states don’t like applying exceptions to them
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
Update: according to the police witnesses at the scene say my father-in-law had a seizure while driving and drove into an intersection, causing the accident. Still unclear if anyone else was injured or what will happen from here. Thanks for all the replies so far.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 21:18
|
|
|
has he had seizures before.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
euphronius posted:has he had seizures before. yea, if he has a history of them he should not have been driving. Lobsterpillar posted:That's interesting. Why? Wouldn't the police report that found that X driver failed to give way to Y be kind of a key part of the case? Or would that only be used if the police were pressing charges against one of the drivers? they are poo poo evidence - a report from someone who showed up after the accident occurred, probably doesn't have accident reconstruction experience, and then decides which witness he finds more credible and which facts he thinks matters most. just a lot of problems with them
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 21:35
|
|
|
euphronius posted:has he had seizures before. Not that we are aware of.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:That's interesting. Why? Wouldn't the police report that found that X driver failed to give way to Y be kind of a key part of the case? Or would that only be used if the police were pressing charges against one of the drivers? The police officer should testify in person about what he saw so he can be cross-examined.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2021 00:30
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:yea, if he has a history of them he should not have been driving. That's not generally the law or supported by medical best practices. Most people who have had seizures can completely control them with medications and are at no more risk of an accident than anyone else. Assuming he either had had no prior seizures or that his seizures were controlled with medication up till now, in my state at least this would be a clsssic example of a no fault accident. My state isn't California though.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2021 01:30
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:That's interesting. Why? Wouldn't the police report that found that X driver failed to give way to Y be kind of a key part of the case? Or would that only be used if the police were pressing charges against one of the drivers? Cops get poo poo wrong and lie all the time and you can't cross examine a written statement. If you want the cop to testify, put them on the stand.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2021 01:32
|
|
|
Cops don’t usually see anything tho They come after the accident
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
Possible how they find the accident scene which can be used in accident reconstruction
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2021 01:46
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It’s hearsay and states don’t like applying exceptions to them Unless the judge lets the public defender yell in front of the jury over and over that it's an inconsistent statement, at which point the prosecutor admits the whole drat thing under the context rule to let the jury figure it out. That's a fine plan until the court of appeals squawks about some unfairness to the prosecution simply following the path plowed by the idiot judge and admittedly very talented public defender (who was baiting the prosecutor to commit reversible error the whole time). Why no that didn't happen to me why do you ask?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2021 01:52
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's not generally the law or supported by medical best practices. That's a lot of "but"s. If he's recently had seizures any doctor in my state would be pulling his drivers license license for a minimum of 6 to 12 months until it's been established that a cause has been remedied or that treatments are working long term. This does not seem unreasonable to me.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
MOVIE LAW QUESTION: Films show the prosecution/defense attorneys addressing the jury directly. Is a witness on the stand or the defendant on the stand allowed to directly address the jury?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2021 04:11
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:MOVIE LAW QUESTION: Yes. That's a standard tactic. If the witness is comfortable, like a homicide detective, you just lead out with "explain to the jury" questions. "Explain to the jury the standard operating procedure for collecting evidence in a case like this." "Explain to the jury how you collected this evidence, and how that was consistent with standard operating procedure." "Explain to the jury standard operating procedure for packaging evidence up to send to the lab." "Explain to the jury how you sent this evidence to the lab, and how that was consistent with standard operating procedure." "Explain to the jury how you receive reports from the lab." If the witness is more folky or chatty, like in an extraverted way, you can do this too. "Tell the jury about what you saw that day." If the lawyers address the jury in the middle of trial, the other side can be expected to object. Lawyers are not supposed to just deliver a speech. That's for opening and closing. Clever lawyers get around that, by talking to the judge (i.e. "speaking objections") and just launching into a speech that the jury can conveniently and coincidentally hear. Something like "Objection judge, this witness's testimony plainly contradicts the recording we played for the jury yesterday when the police officer was on the stand, when the witness told the police officer that the car was red. Now this witness has changed their story to the car being blue. I object." Now, that is not a real objection, that's just a speech delivered to the judge but in reality it's for the jury.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2021 04:38
|
|
|
Motronic posted:That's a lot of "but"s. Yes, but if he'd recently had seizures the family would probably know about it (and his license would have likely already been pulled!)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2021 05:45
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Possible how they find the accident scene which can be used in accident reconstruction Depends on how many points the cop put into visual calculus.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:That's interesting. Why? Wouldn't the police report that found that X driver failed to give way to Y be kind of a key part of the case? Or would that only be used if the police were pressing charges against one of the drivers? All the other people answered above, but comedian Mike Birbiglia had a great comedy routine awhile back where he discussed being in a accident where he was sitting completely at rest at a STOP sign and the resulting police report was a hilarious mess of contradictions which involved, amongst other things, him colliding with himself. He went down some kind of rabbit hole trying to get it fixed up until his wife basically told him to let it go and just eat the insurance costs.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
Last winter I got "doored" while jogging in the bike lane. I got banged up pretty bad and couldn't exercise for several months, though no fractures. The owner of the store filed claim under his insurance and the letter the legal group sent me determines me to be at "50% fault" and a release for $250. The thing is the ED visit alone cost me approximately $600-700. Do I contact them and ask them to cover the total visit? I did not file a police report or speak to a lawyer. I live in IL.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 07:32
|
|
|
Jogging in a bike lane sounds like an odd decision. Why weren't you on the footpath?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 12:37
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:Jogging in a bike lane sounds like an odd decision. Why weren't you on the footpath? That's extremely common, if you jogged you'd know that asphalt is much more springy than concrete so it is less impact on your joints. edit: I would have had a lawyer contest the 50% at fault thing. Drivers around here at 100% responsible to make sure they don't door a cyclist, and a jogger going full tilt can't be reasonably expected to dodge a sharp door edge whipped into their ribs when going at full tilt either. It's not that hard to look out the window first. Zero VGS fucked around with this message at 18:16 on May 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:That's extremely common, if you jogged you'd know that asphalt is much more springy than concrete so it is less impact on your joints. Why would the store insurance be paying for a car door injury?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
Zauper posted:Why would the store insurance be paying for a car door injury? I assumed because the store owned the car? It was a company delivery car? Maybe if the car wasn't in motion, it was more of a "company property caused injury" thing and that's why they didn't use automotive insurance. IANAL
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2021 18:37
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:That's extremely common, if you jogged you'd know that asphalt is much more springy than concrete so it is less impact on your joints. Fair point, but where I live we asphalt our footpaths (roads are usually AC for busier ones or chipseal) and usually have substantial amounts of grass berms so there's not really much incentive to jog on the road.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2021 08:39
|
|
|
Correct, it was from a a company vehicle during work hours. I was also running in jogging lane because there were people on the side walk and I wanted to social distance (this is pre vaccine days). So do I tell them I would like more, or I will be speaking to a lawyer?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2021 09:01
|
|
|
nervana posted:Correct, it was from a a company vehicle during work hours. I was also running in jogging lane because there were people on the side walk and I wanted to social distance (this is pre vaccine days). Speak to the lawyer first and have the lawyer tell their lawyer you want more.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2021 23:42
|
|
|
So my mother is currently outside of the states but owns a home there. She has a property management company that takes care of the home and rents it out to people. She's getting older and would like to put my name on the deed of the house so in case anything happens, or if she wants me to communicate directly with the property management company, I can do so. She has a will in place already. Is this something that we should hire a lawyer for or is it a more simple process? I have a few other questions regarding the tax implications and what not but that's probably best suited in another thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
Can she not authorise you to talk to property managers on her behalf without your name being on the deed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
Busy Bee posted:So my mother is currently outside of the states but owns a home there. She has a property management company that takes care of the home and rents it out to people. i am a lawyer, and i would not touch anything real-estate related without a real estate lawyer you absolutely need a lawyer if you are touching a deed
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
State where the property is located? Probably wants to put it in trust or LLC, or even both
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
nervana posted:Correct, it was from a a company vehicle during work hours. I was also running in jogging lane because there were people on the side walk and I wanted to social distance (this is pre vaccine days). if I got hosed up by a company's insured vehicle as a pedestrian, likely due to no fault of my own, to the extent that i had to go to the ER and couldn't exercise for "several months", i would be calling lawyers ASAP. are you seriously considering a three-digit settlement?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
Out of country Landlord mom will 100% need a lawyer to do a conveyance . She also needs estate planning
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Out of country Landlord mom will 100% need a lawyer to do a conveyance . She also needs estate planning This is exactly right. There are tax consequences, and estate consequences to her transfer and ownership of the property to you. It's not super expensive and absolutely worth the money. I call on the estate planning lawyer first, because they'll almost certainly be able to do what you need at the house.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
There is also the issue of who is signing the conveyance and where and witnessed by whom
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:This is exactly right. There are tax consequences, and estate consequences to her transfer and ownership of the property to you. Transfer of realestate and estate planning are two very good examples of lawyers basically paying for themselves in time saved, headache saved, and about 10x in money saved. Don't do that poo poo without a lawyer. Like 75% of my civil consults was someone loving up either one of these or both.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2021 05:43
|
|
|
I guess one of my coworkers got in a car accident on his 10 minute rest break (California) and now our employer is banning us from leaving the property if we're clocked in because they're liable for whatever happens. This seems federally legal but the CA Supreme Court states that rest breaks must be duty free. My employer doesn't have a good grasp of the law so I wanted to ask, is my job allowed to make this policy? Edit: or is this something I should ask a local lawyer about Overnight Blaze fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jun 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
You’d want a wage and hour attorney that is local to you You’d just search “wage and hour attorney” plus the relevant county Maybe they’d talk to you for free. You can get a bunch of your work mates together and split the cost of an hour ($150) to get a clear answer (I often had this as an attorney)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
You never know what other issues a lawyer finds out just by talking to them too . They are good at issue spotting (which is similar to reading the entrails of a sacrificed goat in the old days )
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
Thesaurus posted:if I got hosed up by a company's insured vehicle as a pedestrian, likely due to no fault of my own, to the extent that i had to go to the ER and couldn't exercise for "several months", i would be calling lawyers ASAP. you really do bring up a good point I just didn't want to spend months dealing with this. I'll talk to the insurance company and see what they say
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2021 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
$150 an hour? Woof that’s worse than insurance defense
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2021 13:52
|
|
