Farmer Brown had saved up for years to buy his super-duper combine complete with rice unloading auger, spread straw chopper, grain bin extension, intake screen and many extras. Farmer Brown was the envy of every other farmer in the area.
But the first day that Farmer Brown used his combine, he noticed that it seemed to make a funny noise and shift out of gear on its own. Farmer Brown consulted with Crafty Carl, a neighbor. Crafty Carl was a local legend when it came to any type of farm equipment maintenance and/or repair. It didn’t take Crafty Carl long to come to the conclusion that there was a manufacturing defect in the gear box.
Farmer Brown contacted the manufacturing company, Red Bolt Company, out of Iowa. Red Bolt responded that the combine was fine and that Farmer Brown simply did not know how to operate it.
Farmer Brown had no choice but to sue Red Bolt. At the trial Red Bolt produced their expert mechanical engineer, Dr. Wolfgang Windbreaker, B.S., M.S., Ph.D. Farmer Brown would use as his expert, Crafty Carl.
The trial lasted a week. Red Bolt challenged Crafty Carl’s credentials but the Judge allowed Crafty Carl to testify as an expert based upon his 60 plus years of working on virtually every type of farm equipment there was.
The jury came back with a verdict for Farmer Brown awarding him the full purchase price of the combine. When Crafty Carl was asked about the quality of testimony of Dr. Windbreaker, Crafty Carl simply responded that the doctor was an expert in artificial stupidity. It seems Dr. Windbreaker never rode in a combine in his life. The jury foreman would describe Dr. Windbreaker as “all foam…no beer”.
Analytical Alice, Carl’s wife, who observed the trial, pitched in with her opinion that Dr. Windbreaker was “a few peas short of a casserole”.
Red Bolt took an appeal to the Superior Court, and in the Decision of the Superior Court, they concluded that the jury accepted horse sense over bull.
Bob, Karen and their two children had just moved into their brand new apartment when Bob received notice that his reserve unit was being called to active duty to eventually go to Afghanistan. Bob had signed a two year lease with this landlord obligating Bob to pay $900 per month in rent. Bob was employed as an accountant for a local accounting firm and was earning over $50,000 per year. With Bob’s deployment, it became obvious that the family was going to have a difficult time paying their rent and meeting all their other expenses.
The landlord gave Bob’s wife several warnings after Bob had been gone for six months, and the rent was now two months overdue. The landlord stated he would have to start an eviction proceeding against Bob’s family.
Question: Will the landlord be successful?
Answer: The landlord will not be successful. Under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act, men and women serving in the military are afforded protection from situations like this. That protection includes reduced interest on credit card debt, reduce interests on mortgage payments, protection from eviction if the rent is $1,200 or less, and delay of all civil court actions including bankruptcy actions and foreclosures.
The only way the landlord would be able to evict Bob’s family is to get a court order authorizing the eviction. If, in fact, the landlord takes the matter to court, the court is allowed to grant a stay of up to three months or enter any other “order as may be just”. If the military service materially effects Bob’s family’s ability to pay the rent, the Judge is afforded wide latitude to protect Bob’s family while Bob is serving his country.
Bob’s family is also provided significant protection with regards to the limits of interest that may be collected on any of his debts. He cannot be charged more than 6% interest during the period Bob is in the military service. This provision applies to all debts incurred prior to the commencement of active duty and includes such things as interest on credit card debt, mortgages, car loans and other debts. This applies to all pre-service debts only, and the interest reduction doesn’t automatically occur. Bob would have to request the same by notifying the lenders of his intent to utilize his 6% cap in writing along with providing the lenders proof of his mobilization/activation to active duty and provide them evidence of the difference in his military as opposed to his civilian pay.
Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.
Congress is currently considering legislation for a proposed $700 billion bailout of the U.S. financial system.
As lawmakers put together a plan to resolve this current financial crisis, there is concern that the viability of the civil justice system will be challenged. Specifically, there is proposed legislation that would grant the Treasury Department authority to limit or affect private litigation against the parties responsible for creating this crisis, or any prohibition on judicial review and perhaps grant immunity to those who bear responsibility for the current financial crisis.
As concerned citizens who will be directly effected by the bailout , we should contact our representatives in Washington and express our concerns. It is especially important that we contact the members of the House Committee on Financial Services including U.S. Representatives Paul Kanjorski and Jim Gerlach and the Senate Banking Committee including Sen. Robert Casey.
A sample letter is set forth below.
——————————————————————————–
Letter to Congress on Proposed Wall Street Bailout
Dear Representative or Senator:
As Congress is considering legislation for a proposed $700 billion bailout of the U.S. financial system, I am deeply concerned that our civil justice system will be disregarded. Specifically, I oppose any legislative proposal granting the Treasury Department authority to limit or affect private litigation against the parties responsible for creating this crisis, or any prohibition on judicial review. This crisis cannot be used to take away 7th Amendment rights.
Granting the Secretary broad, unfettered authority could wipe out pending or future claims against the parties responsible for creating the current financial crisis. We must protect the legal rights and remedies afforded to the nation’s shareholders and investors, including millions of pension fund participants whose retirement funding and savings could be wiped out in the current crisis.
In addition, any prohibition on judicial review is unacceptable. Judicial review of the Secretary’s actions is critical to ensuring the success of the bailout. Checks and balances are a cornerstone of our democratic government. The current economic crisis was caused in part by a lack of oversight and transparency. We should not aim to resolve this problem by instituting a system where a non-elected public official can act without any checks by any branch of the government. Congress should explicitly provide for judicial review in any bailout legislation. The current financial crisis calls for enhanced regulation and stronger rights for individual investors.
On June 10th, 2008, 12-year-old Theodore Cleaver exited from his school bus and proceeded to cross in front of the school bus into the opposite lane of traffic. A vehicle driven by Edward Haskell proceeding in the opposite direction of the school bus failed to come to a stop as required by the law. Poor Theodore was struck by the car. Theodore suffered numerous contusions, abrasions and fractures.
Theodore would end up being in a cast the entire summer of 2008, and he would not be able to participate in any sports at school for the following year. Theodore was also essentially bedridden for almost eight weeks. Fortunately, Theodore would make a full recovery from his injuries.
Theodore’s mother sought to bring a law suit against Mr. Haskell and his insurance company. Mr. Haskell’s insurance company’s lawyer stated that since Mrs. Cleaver had limited tort and Theodore would make a full recovery, Mrs. Cleaver could not sue.
Question: Would Mrs. Cleaver be able to bring a suit on behalf of her son?
Answer: Yes. A person who is a pedestrian is allowed to bring a law suit regardless of what automobile insurance coverage they have under their own automobile policies. Limited tort restrictions do not apply to pedestrians who are injured by automobiles.
Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.
People often said that the best friend Wilbur ever had in life was his horse, Ed. Wilbur pampered Ed more than he pampered his own wife and family. Ed had a specially built small horse barn with one supersized stall. The barn was air conditioned in the summertime and heated in the winter. Wilbur went so far as providing a TV for Ed to watch. It seemed that they both had their happiest moments when they were watching the Wheel of Fortune, which they would never miss. Wilbur enjoyed watching the contestants, where Ed seemed to get a particular thrill out of watching Vanna spin the wheel.
Wilbur’s wife became fed up because Wilbur said he never had money to take her out for dinner but he had plenty of money to pay for the heating bill for the barn. Wilbur told his wife not to be concerned that despite the sharp increase in the cost of oil, that he had locked in a set rate the previous summer and not to be concerned.
Sure enough, Wilbur received a letter from the oil company stating that because of the unprecedented increase in the cost of oil that the oil company could not abide by their agreement and Ed would face an increase of almost $2.50 a gallon for his oil, starting immediately.
Question: Can the oil company raise the price of oil because their own costs had gone up so sharply?
Answer: No. The oil company had contracted with Ed for Ed to pay a said amount over the course of the year, and they must honor that contract. If, for some reason, the international situation was such as the price of oil went way down, Ed would not have gotten the benefits of lower prices per month. It is basically the risk each party took when they entered into the yearlong contract.
Fortunately, Wilbur and Ed will be able to continue to have hours of fun together watching the Wheel of Fortune in the warm comfort of Ed’s barn.
Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.
Cisco and Poncho were best friends ever since they became neighbors back in the early 1990’s. Cisco lived on a property right next to Poncho which was slightly higher than Poncho’s.
One hot summer, Cisco decided to put in a very large above ground pool which Cisco would always drain at the end of the summer and sometimes during heavy rains during the summer. Unfortunately, the runoff from Cisco’s pool, at times, would run onto Poncho’s land and eventually to the foundation of Poncho’s house causing water damage in Poncho’s basement.
Cisco always promised to fix the situation but never did and would pay Poncho for whatever work had to be done to get the water out of Poncho’s basement. Eventually Poncho became fed up and told Cisco he would have to make the appropriate alterations immediately or Poncho was going to have to sue his former good friend, Cisco.
Sure enough with the September rains making the water saturated already when Cisco drained his pool, it seems like he was draining it right into Poncho’s basement. Poncho was fed up and decided he had no choice but to sue Cisco. Cisco’s attorney stated that Poncho’s case should be thrown out because more than two years had passed since Poncho was aware of the problem and never attempted to enforce his right.
Question: Is Cisco’s attorney correct?
Answer: No, even though Poncho’s home had been flooded out for a number of years on occasion, every time there was flooding, the running of the two years would start all over again. Be that as it may, under Pennsylvania law, any action or proceeding to recover damages for injuries either to a person or to property which is based upon either negligence or an intentional act, must be commenced within two years.
Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.
Jack had been working construction for 20 years and was extremely safety conscious. Jack would always wear a hardhat or safety eyewear when around the construction sites.
As fate would have it, Jack was on his day off when he got an emergency call from one of the construction sites. Jack was a foreman, and there was a dispute over the way some of the electrical work was being done. Jack arrived at the site and proceeded into the building that was under construction. Jack had no sooner entered the building when a metal fragment came flying into his right eye which, despite extensive treatment, would be lost.
Question: What are Jack’s rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act?
Answer: Jack would be entitled to what is called loss of use of the eye which will entitle him to payment of all of his medical bills as well as compensation benefits for 275 weeks regardless of whether he works or not. If Jack’s compensation rate would have been $700/week, he would receive that amount for the full 275 weeks. The Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act provides these types of benefits for loss of use of limbs, eyesight, hearing and even for scarring of the head, neck and face.
Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.
Laura and Rhoda would make it a point to stop in and check on their mom at least twice a day. Their mother was 86 and lived alone in her own home. Laura and Rhoda realized that their mom, while physically sprite, did have periods of mental confusion. Nevertheless, the girls were comfortable with the situation as the neighbors would also frequently stop in to check on their mother as well.
On May 15th a friendly vacuum cleaner salesman came to the door of Mrs. Petrie. Normally Mrs. Petrie would welcome everyone since it was just people checking in on her. She also welcomed the young man who seemed straight forward and quite nice. The salesman displayed his super deluxe X1000 vacuum cleaner. He advised Mrs. Petrie it would do a better job than any other cleaner on the market and used hardly any electricity whatsoever. He also advised Mrs. Petrie that if she bought the vacuum cleaner today, she would get the extra special bonus discount, and the vacuum cleaner would only cost her $2,000.
While Laura and Rhoda took care of virtually all of their mother’s transactions, they did allow their mother access to a checking account and to write checks in case of emergencies which really had never happened. Nevertheless, Mrs. Petrie wrote out a check to the salesman’s company for $2,000 and did not think about it at all after that.
That evening when Rhoda visited her mother, she asked where the vacuum cleaner had come from and quickly was advised as to what happened. Rhoda also made several calls and found out that the vacuum cleaner usually sells for $800 and contacted the salesman’s company demanding a full refund.
Question: Will Rhoda be successful?
Answer: Yes. There are provisions in the Consumer Protection Act which provides specific protection for people like Mrs. Petrie. Mrs. Petrie will get a full refund. In situations where the consumer transaction is excessively one-sided in favor of someone other than the consumer such as this case or where it is clear the consumer is not reasonably able to protect their own interest or understand the full implications of the transaction, the law provides absolute protection to the vulnerable consumer.
Not only will Mrs. Petrie get her money back but, in all likelihood, the friendly salesman’s company will face fines.
Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.
Ward and June were on their way back to Pleasant Mount after visiting their son at Lockhaven University. It was a sunny, warm afternoon and visibility was excellent as they were traveling east on Route 80.
Ward noticed a large tractor trailer in his rearview mirror coming up behind him in the passing lane going extremely fast. Ward would later testify that the truck had to be going at least 85 miles per hour.
Just as the truck was approximately three-quarters of the way past Ward, for some inexplicable reason, the truck started to come into Ward’s lane. Ward started to move over but the truck came over too quickly causing an impact. Both the tractor trailer and Ward’s vehicle were out of control.
The next thing Ward realized was that he woke up in the hospital. Both Ward and June would sustain extremely serious injuries with June having incurred permanent brain damage.
The truck driver would later claim that a deer or some animal began to enter his lane of travel, and he was trying to veer out of the way so as not to kill the animal. Other non-involved witnesses, though, would deny ever seeing any animal anywhere in the roadway or near the road at or around the time of the accident. One witness to the accident claimed that before the investigators arrived, the truck driver stated he might have dozed off for a second.
The U. S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration sets forth strict rules about keeping log books that apply to trucks and trucking companies. The acquisition of copies of all these log books as soon as possible after the injury is imperative. There are strict safety rules about the number of hours that truck drivers can drive per day and per week. However, the regulations on interstate truckers only require that these log books be kept for a certain period of time.
The best lawyers who handle trucking accident cases know that this is one piece of evidence among many that must be preserved as soon as possible. Too often when diligence is not followed, these records are discarded by trucking companies.
One of the main reasons that truckers have collisions with other vehicles is because of driver fatigue. The log books often show just how tired or overworked the person was behind the wheel at the time of the wreck.
Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.
Carlos was in America on a work visa. Carlos worked during the summer for the Waterproof Roofing Company. Carlos would send two-thirds of his pay back to his wife in Mexico every payday. Carlos was a very hard worker but as fate would have it, Carlos fell from a roof he was working on as a result of a freak accident causing his death.
Question: Is Carlos’ wife in Mexico entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits as a result of Carlos’ untimely death?
Answer: Alien widow’s, children and parents, not residents of the United States, are entitled to compensation but only to the amount of 50% of the compensation which would have been provided if they were residents of the United States. Since Mexico does provide compensation benefits for residents of the United States, this would hold true. If Mexico or any foreign country did not provide for this type of protection, then the injured worker’s relatives would have no benefits forthcoming.
If it was Carlos’ wife that was fatally injured and Carlos was living in Mexico, then Carlos would not be entitled to any benefits as alien widowers, and brothers and sisters who are not residents of the United States are never entitled to receive any compensation.
Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.
