Earl Weiss
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 6,367
- Reaction score
- 941
- Points
- 113
Shafted by the Court. A cautionary tale.
Sept. 2012. 2000 Ford Van 135,000 miles jumps track halfway thru.
I check his tire pressure. 15 PSI LF and 50 LF.
I deny liability.
Owner has State Farm pay for $3000.00 repair. Estimate includes repairs to all 4 sides and a wheel alignment. Tell SF not liable. They sue. Go to trial.
Owner testifies Van was in “Mint’ condition. Only right side damaged and no wheel alignment issues caused by incident. Has no idea what happened. Claims rep testifies that is the estimate and they paid $. He was in courtroom when driver testified. I cross examine on all the estimate entries about left, Front, and Rear repairs. He sheepishly said it was reported as impact on all sides and that is how they handled the claim.
Attorney calls me as adverse witness. (Not worth going into this now) Plaintiff rests.
I move for directed verdict since there was no evidence of negligence, causation, and the damages estimate is worthless since it’s got dozens of entries many of which do not apply to even the claimed damages.
I testify about causation. Show video of conveyor in operation. Show how even after a vehicle reaches the end it still goes straight. Draw an analogy to an escalator.
Make same arguments as before. Judge splits baby and awards $1550.00.
Kicker. Judge says. “You could have checked the customers tires before they came in.” and “You take the plaintiff as you find him” . Which is a maxim relating to damages, particularly injuries where a Plaintiff with a condition suffers more severe injuries than a normal person, bu the person who cause the injury is still responsible for what they cause.
So, here you have a judge who ignored or did not know the law, imposing a duty to check customers tire pressure (I suppose wheel alignment, grabbing brakes as well) which is not the accepted industry standard, and confuses a principal concerning damages with negligence / liability. BTW she commented that signs did not disclaim liability for tire pressure issues. (They do now).
Sept. 2012. 2000 Ford Van 135,000 miles jumps track halfway thru.
I check his tire pressure. 15 PSI LF and 50 LF.
I deny liability.
Owner has State Farm pay for $3000.00 repair. Estimate includes repairs to all 4 sides and a wheel alignment. Tell SF not liable. They sue. Go to trial.
Owner testifies Van was in “Mint’ condition. Only right side damaged and no wheel alignment issues caused by incident. Has no idea what happened. Claims rep testifies that is the estimate and they paid $. He was in courtroom when driver testified. I cross examine on all the estimate entries about left, Front, and Rear repairs. He sheepishly said it was reported as impact on all sides and that is how they handled the claim.
Attorney calls me as adverse witness. (Not worth going into this now) Plaintiff rests.
I move for directed verdict since there was no evidence of negligence, causation, and the damages estimate is worthless since it’s got dozens of entries many of which do not apply to even the claimed damages.
I testify about causation. Show video of conveyor in operation. Show how even after a vehicle reaches the end it still goes straight. Draw an analogy to an escalator.
Make same arguments as before. Judge splits baby and awards $1550.00.
Kicker. Judge says. “You could have checked the customers tires before they came in.” and “You take the plaintiff as you find him” . Which is a maxim relating to damages, particularly injuries where a Plaintiff with a condition suffers more severe injuries than a normal person, bu the person who cause the injury is still responsible for what they cause.
So, here you have a judge who ignored or did not know the law, imposing a duty to check customers tire pressure (I suppose wheel alignment, grabbing brakes as well) which is not the accepted industry standard, and confuses a principal concerning damages with negligence / liability. BTW she commented that signs did not disclaim liability for tire pressure issues. (They do now).
