The other day I found out that an Illinois defendant has the burden of proving by expert testimony the relatedness of a previous injury (or condition) to offer evidence of it at trial, even if it is to the same part of the body and of the same type of injury/condition. The fuck?
Illinois is all sorts of fucked up. You have to pay for literally all of your expert's time--including if the OTHER side wants to depose them. Nonsense. But what I am currenty witnessing isnt even supported by precedent. Judges, several of them, are quite literally legislating from the bench. I can only draw one conclusion as to why but I won't elaborate. Right? Think our firm might head in that direction if plausible.
question for the tmb lawyers: wife's family just got sued; cliffs: family owns pizza restaurant hires a driver with a "bad driving record" according to the suit; at the time of the hire, he had a license and insurance at some point during his employment, he gets his license revoked/suspended, doesnt tell her dad he goes on a delivery, hits a guy, drives away; guy later dies guy is in his 70s, retired, no kids, kind of a loner, no immediate family his niece who wasnt close to him, files the lawsuit anything they can do? or just settle?
I mean, what do you want to hear from folks? Clearly, you fight it if there is evidence that they had no idea he was a bad driver. If the evidence says otherwise, yeah, they are probably fucked.
thats the info i had, was just wanting some lawyer opinions thats all; they havent been hit with the suit yet, just a letter from the nieces lawyer mainly the big thing i guess was clarification on the niece being able to sue
I'm going to assume they had some kind of insurance. If that's correct, let their lawyers handle it for the time being.
i believe they did; to add some clarification got a letter from nieces lawyer dad called the lawyer and saying they're being sued for hiring a guy with a bad driving record, not even anything like pain and suffering, etc he hasnt filed the suit yet though
Not my area of practice, but it sounds like the niece would have a hard time showing any significant damages. I'm sure they have some sort of insurance, which more often than not is all the attorney is after. Hand it over to the insurance company and let them handle the claim.
I thought you were referring to her having a hard time showing significant damages when he mentioned pain and suffering as if it were her that was suffering. I was like ummmm
Punitives, negro. killerwvu All are right about making a claim with the insurance company and letting their lawyers handle it. Out of curiosity, where are you? The different ways wrongful death statutes are handled are pretty interesting. For example, in Alabama, the statute only allows for punitives. In Texas, any potential beneficiary of the estate can be a real party in interest, rather than one administrator/representative of the estate bringing the suit.
Here's an interesting scenario: Tortfeasor kills Decedent, and Decedent's Estate has two years to file wrongful death claim. Tortfeasor dies intestate in the interim. On the last day to file suit, counsel for Decedent's Estate attempts to formally open the estate of Tortfeasor and have an administrator ad litem appointed in the probate court. Due to probate judge's probate filing requirements, estate does not get formally opened in the probate court. Counsel for decedent files a wrongful death claim in circuit court anyway, listing the to-be-named guardian ad litem as the fictitiously named defendant. Counsel for Tortfeasor's Estate moves to dismiss because the estate was never opened to allow for a party to sue within the statute of limitations. So the issue, among others, becomes when does an estate exist? Only upon its formal opening in the probate court, or immediately upon the death of the decedent?
I was just referring to actual damages. Deceased was in his 70's, retired, no close family, etc. Sad situation obviously, but relatively small amount of actual damages. Again not my area of practice so I'm admittedly a little out of my element here. Wouldn't the plaintiff have to show some malicious or reckless conduct by defendant for punies to come into play? I guess the question would then become is does the negligent hiring/supervision/retention of the employee rise to the level of reckless conduct? Or does the employee's act constitute the reckless conduct that employer is now on the hook for?
Depends on the jurisdiction. In Alabama (which is a minority), the wrongful death statute only allows for punitive damages, but you can get punitives for negligent conduct within the statute. Some jurisdictions also allow for vicarious liability for wanton conduct even if you can't pin the employer for wanton/reckless hiring, training, and supervision.
A couple months after the Decedent. The complaint was filed after Tortfeasor's death, on the last day to file the claim. Since there was no formally opened estate, and therefore no appointed guardian ad litem, or a formally opened estate in which to appoint the guardian ad litem, there can't be a substitution of parties because the wrongful death claim's limitation period passed and there is no tolling for a wrongful death claim. Or at least that's the defense's argument.
I would think that the way to have done it would be to file against the individual, immediately file a notice of death, then a motion to appoint administrator ad litem, and then move to substitute the parties. But, I guess a fictitious party defendant could work? I've never run into it. Typically, it's happened the way I described first.
Yeah we got the case two days before the SoL so it was kind of a scramble. I think we're good and I think I made some good arguments, but you just never know.
So I signed a lease for a new apartment on Monday. The apartment I was shown on my visit had a large walk-in closet and I was told the apartment I was renting would have the same floor plan as the apartment I was shown. The building's website also has a floor plan for each apartment model and a walk-in closet is shown on the floor plan for the model I rented. Well, the apartment I'm being rented has a closet about 25% the size of the one I was shown and definitely would not be considered a walk-in closet under any means. Apparently the apartment they rented to me has been modified to meet ADA requirements. I was never told the apartment I was renting was going to have these modifications or what the modifications were. Is this a significant enough difference to consider my lease invalid? I signed the lease before I had a chance to see the actual apartment.
I would think so. Do you have emails or any other document that says the floor plan would be the same, or something of the sort? Have you raised the issue with management yet, or have you just noticed it?
Couple random thoughts: After 200+ years of jurisprudence and case law in this country, it's amazing how often you run into issues of first impression or cases that have facts that have never been dealt with before in another case. I know no one reads terms and agreement policies or contracts for small shit (insert South Park iTunes episode), but it's equally amazing how no one will read contracts where they'll have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake. And it seems like no one knows how limited liability companies work.
@Anyone doing criminal law Was talking to my brother about the SC supreme Court appointing a permanent judge for the Charleston shooter's potential pretrial and trial. I have no experience in this area, but couldn't that be seen as in violation of the presumption of innocence. The guy hasn't even been indicted I don't believe. Yet the highest court in my state is appointing a judge to hear the case? Just seems off to me.
he is being appointed because they think he can remain unbias and I think that makes sense. Assuming that's the goal.
The judge isn't a factfinder, so I have no idea why the presumption of innocence would be implicated.
Agreed. I get that, but still seems strange appointing a judge before any judicial entity has said he should be charged. I'm not saying it's a fatal defect or anything, but just seems kind of fucked.
It seems unfair to appoint a judge, oppose to getting a judge at random, to the defendant I'm sure. Seems questionable, but not in the name of justice. Seems more fitting. Assuming SC isn't just being sketchy.
Idk. Just seems to me the Supreme Court is assuming he'll be charged (he will, deservedly). That doesn't sit well with my presumption of innocence mindset. It's technical, and even if raised on appeal will be denied but still seems wrong.
The judge is assigned if he ends up getting charged, not assigned beforehand right? Or will he do any bond/bail hearing too?
I don't even get what the technical harm is. Under what circumstance, never mind the circumstances presented here, does the appointment of a judge influence the decision to charge? In what way does it influence the presumption of innocence?
I legitimately have no clue. I'm not even saying it does. I'm just commenting that the fact our supreme Court took action on the case before any kind of indictment was handed down seems... Presumptuous. Probably doesn't mean shit, but as someone that doesn't practice criminal law, seems like something I'd at least try to use to my advantage of I was defending him.
Is anyone else endlessly harassed by Avvo.com? Why would I want premium advertising in a county over 2 hours from my office?
At this point if my malpractice carrier wasn't in the same area code I'd just block the entire Washington area code from calling my number.
They call me all the time and drive me nuts. I have too many clients from all over to really block area codes though, unfortunately.
Guys, why does being a lawyer have to be so god-damn stressful? It may just be being an associate at a mid-large firm...fuck...
Maybe it's just because I'm already jaded, but I don't find it stressful at all. Mainly because I don't think much of it really matters, i.e., we never win (on the defense side), and just give away money all the time (it's not mine, who cares). I'm sure that's because of the line of work I'm in (insurance defense), but the deck is already so incredibly stacked against us, it's a foregone conclusion that every motion will go against us, no MSJ will be granted (ever), nothing will go to trial (despite all the big talk), etc. I guess I'm a nihilist when it comes to the law.
We are the same. Rising second year associate in an Am Law 200 firm taking my first short vacation, and I am neurotically checking my email every 10 minutes.
I also do insurance defense. We definitely always seem to lose, but I'm not so much concerned about the winning and losing in the court room as I am the perceived winning and losing by partners who may not always be paying complete attention or are just looking for someone to hang.
legal advise, if I am about to inherent some $$$ but don't want to pay a shit load of taxes on it what can I do ?