Classless Lawyers

[Sabretooth]

(04-28-2016, 12:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is almost always the best advice, for the exact same reason for what happened here with Brad.

But on the other hand when you are talking about a case worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a family member might be offended if he was not given a chance to handle the case.

One of my good friends was in the real estate business.  There were hard feelings when his brother sold his half-million dollar home using another agent.

A person should not feel obligated to do business exclusively with family.It is the clients' choice on whom to select.
The brother selling the home may have thought another agent may get a better price than his brother, or had other concerns.
(possibly growing up together gives  some insight as to a persons' strengths and weaknesses )

[fredtoast]

(04-28-2016, 12:29 PM)BFritz21 Wrote:  
He didn't do any work for that, though!  He just found the clause in our insurance!

The other attorneys said that they wouldn't even charge a percentage because it was ours anyways, just negotiating a price, which I'm not even sure how much needed to be done.

If there was a settlement then why did you go to trial?  Who's insurance paid?

And I guarantee you that there was more to it than just finding a clause in the insurance.  That would determine fault, but it would not set the amount of damages.  Most of the work is usually over the amount of damages and not who was at fault.

An attorney will not just "negotiate a price".  They will either take a percentage of the settlement or charge an hourly fee. There can be a lot of work involved in proving an amount of damages, and that could lead to a lot of hours billed.  Every personal injury lawyer I know works on a contingency basis unless the job looks like a complete loser, and they usually don't waste their time on a loser case unless the plaintiff just has a lot of money to throw away.

What percentage of the settlement was the $200K? 

[fredtoast]

(04-28-2016, 12:42 PM)Sabretooth Wrote: A person should not feel obligated to do business exclusively with family.It is the clients' choice on whom to select.
The brother selling the home may have thought another agent may get a better price than his brother, or had other concerns.
(possibly growing up together gives  some insight as to a persons' strengths and weaknesses )

I agree.

Plus, if things don't work out it can also cause hard feelings.

[fredtoast]

(04-28-2016, 09:47 AM)Au165 Wrote: Maybe, your case isn't as iron clad as you think it is. Just a crazy thought.

(04-28-2016, 12:29 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Trust me, it was.  

No offense Brad, but when a judge, and appeals court judge, and an entire jury all disagree with you surely you can understand why some people might doubt your claim.

[fredtoast]

(04-28-2016, 12:29 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I know what the jury based the ruling on because they told the judge after the trial.  The ruling was incorrect because it was that we could have wrecked anywhere, when we only wrecked in the cemetery because he was speeding, which he only did because there were no other cars, traffic laws, or chances of being caught because cops weren't allowed back there, and not to mention that nowhere else would have had streets as narrow, dark, or windy as the cemetery, not to mention nothing like a headstone that we could clip.  The cemetery was also only a hundred yards from his neighborhood on a straight highway, so no chance or wrecking there, either.  Thanks, call me out more.

Unfortunately there was no proof that the driver would not have exceeded the speed limit or wrecked on the public road.  it happens all the time with drunk drivers.  

If the driver was willing to operate the vehicle in a dangerous manner in a cemetery then it is very likely that he would have been willing to do the same on a public road also.  A driver is either safe or he is not.  The driver was stupid or else intoxicated to the point that his judgement was impaired.  Neither one of those things would have changed when he reached the public road.

If the road in the cemetery was safe to drive on under normal conditions then they could not be held at fault for a drunk person driving too fast on it.  If there was some huge hole or dangerous defect in the cemetery road then they might have been at fault, but if the road was safe then they were not at fault.

[XenoMorph]

Fred,

If a lawyer F's up your case so bad you lose what should have been a easy victory can you then sue your lawyer for the preceived losses he caused you? you already know hes not a good lawyer so finding one better shouldnt be hard. but does that happen at all?

[fredtoast]

(04-28-2016, 12:29 PM)BFritz21 Wrote:   Case-in-point: his reasoning for saying the driver's parents weren't at fault were because they "couldn't foresee that the driver would drink and drive in the cemetery," even though he had drank before in the cemetery and driven with his father,

You might have a legitimate complaint here if there was proof presented that the parents acquiesced in his drinking and driving.  But usually you have to show that he was allowed to drink in his own home or that the parents provided the alcohol.

So did his parents approve of his drinking and driving?  Did they allow him to drunk in his own home?  Was there legit evidence presented to the judge to prove this?

A parent who knows that his child is a reckless drunk is not liable for the damages caused unless they could have prevented it in some way.

[fredtoast]

(04-28-2016, 12:54 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Fred,

If a lawyer F's up your case so bad you lose what should have been a easy victory can you then sue your lawyer for the preceived losses he caused you?  you already know hes not a good lawyer so finding one better shouldnt be hard.  but does that happen at all?

This happens all the time.  Lawyers carry malpractice insurance to pay when they screw up.

A friend of mine who lives in Denver is going through this right now.  When he got divorced he used a friend of his who was an attorney.  He totally screwed up the case.  My friend got another lawyer who had to go back to court to get the original ruling set aside, but his original lawyer blatantly ****** up. 

[fredtoast]

(04-28-2016, 02:53 AM)BFritz21 Wrote:   During that time, the cemetery's lawyer dies, but it turns out he wanted to settle, and not for anything cheap, either. 

If the opposing party made an offer to settle that was not presented to your family then you definitely have a case for malpractice.

What kind of proof do you have of this?

[Rotobeast]

Just curious.....
Was the party and accident during the day, or night ?

[Penn]

I just couldn't even read the whole OP. Maybe after getting this off my chest I will go back and read the whole thread but I seriously think you are not considering a few things here, Brad.

Before I get started I'll tell you something Brad. I have NEVER had anything against you. In fact, between the one time on this board and the 2 or maybe 3 times I directly interacted with you on the old board, I actually agreed with you and treated you amicably. I also was disgusted when certain popular trolls followed you from one thread to another to mock you. Keep this in mind before you decide the following means anything along the lines of "I hate you".

Some years ago, I stopped by to visit my mother's aunts. They were very upset. It seems someone was joy riding in a cemetery where many of my family members are buried and go in an accident. These ladies were very kind and laid back but, wow, were they ever both sad and annoyed and they just couldn't hide it. One even wished ill-will upon all those involved. They felt personally disrespected by the disregard for the dead.

Years later I was on the original Bengals forum and I see a guy talking about a car accident and his struggles since. I looked more into it and shock to find, YOU Brad were involved in the distress of some of my family members.

Now I hear you are suing the cemetery where you disrespected the loved ones of many N KY people. You are suing them, not they or the family of those interred there are suing your????

I can conceive of absolutely no valid reason why after you chose to get in that car you can justify holding the cemetery at fault. None. Some people see those grounds as hallow. Even if you don't think of something as sacred, you should respect those who do by not defiling it. I have certain negative views of Islam but when my job has required me to go into a Muslim house or the Mosque many of them went to, I removed my shoes and was respectful. In that mosque, I was told I didn't have to remove my shoes by the person letting me in, and I removed them anyway out of respect for something others held sacred.

Until today I have never gotten angry at you for any reason (including when my family member were upset and I didn't yet know who you were). I won't hold it against you but I at least wanted to let you know where I stand as well as where many others would stand on this issue if they knew this was happening.

I hope the cemetery wins.

[fredtoast]

(04-28-2016, 01:44 PM)Penn Wrote: I can conceive of absolutely no valid reason why after you chose to get in that car you can justify holding the cemetery at fault.  None. 

You are correct.  In many states all his claims would be barred based on "assumption of the risk".  In those states if you chose to get in a car when you know the driver is drunk then you can not claim anyone else is at fault.

[BFritz21]

(04-28-2016, 12:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If a judge claimed he ruled against a plaintiff because the plaintiff rushed him that would not only raise a red flag it would get him tossed off the bench.

He had a history of doing it, but it can't be "proven."  There's no other reason of why he would make such a bogus ruling.

(04-28-2016, 12:40 PM)Au165 Wrote: No chance of wrecking outside the cemetery? People wreck every day on straight roads. What you just said isn't an acceptable argument and the jury obviously agreed. Are you saying you guys contended that the cemetery was libel because while trespassing, you guys sped down winding dark roads and wrecked? Was that your argument? If so, the jury got it right.

Were your parents charged with child negligence?  By your logic the fact they didn't know you were at a party with drunk friends who eventually would almost kill you meets the standard for neglect.

Ok, so you're saying that we would have wrecked on a straight, wide highway, that didn't have many other cars on it while going the speed limit?

We weren't trespassing, the people who lived in the cemetery were letting their son have a party for all of our close friends, as they often did.

(04-28-2016, 12:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If there was a settlement then why did you go to trial?  Who's insurance paid?

And I guarantee you that there was more to it than just finding a clause in the insurance.  That would determine fault, but it would not set the amount of damages.  Most of the work is usually over the amount of damages and not who was at fault.

An attorney will not just "negotiate a price".  They will either take a percentage of the settlement or charge an hourly fee. There can be a lot of work involved in proving an amount of damages, and that could lead to a lot of hours billed.  Every personal injury lawyer I know works on a contingency basis unless the job looks like a complete loser, and they usually don't waste their time on a loser case unless the plaintiff just has a lot of money to throw away.

What percentage of the settlement was the $200K? 

The clause was in our insurance that, if I was injured by an uninsured driver, that we'd be entitled to money.  So, no, there wasn't more to it, but way to act like you know what you're talking about.

(04-28-2016, 12:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No offense Brad, but when a judge, and appeals court judge, and an entire jury all disagree with you surely you can understand why some people might doubt your claim.

The judge made a bogus ruling.

It never went to an appeals court.

The jury awarded us 8 million dollars but put most of the fault on the driver, whom the judge let out of the case.

Yes, it was ironclad.  Please keep posting like you know what you're talking about.

(04-28-2016, 12:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Unfortunately there was no proof that the driver would not have exceeded the speed limit or wrecked on the public road.  it happens all the time with drunk drivers.  

If the driver was willing to operate the vehicle in a dangerous manner in a cemetery then it is very likely that he would have been willing to do the same on a public road also.  A driver is either safe or he is not.  The driver was stupid or else intoxicated to the point that his judgement was impaired.  Neither one of those things would have changed when he reached the public road.

If the road in the cemetery was safe to drive on under normal conditions then they could not be held at fault for a drunk person driving too fast on it.  If there was some huge hole or dangerous defect in the cemetery road then they might have been at fault, but if the road was safe then they were not at fault.

He was on a public road four times before we wrecked in the cemetery, which is where we wrecked.  

Like I said, no cops, no other cars, no traffic laws, no chance of being in trouble in the cemetery, narrow roads, dark roads.  Logic says that we wouldn't have wrecked, as well as four other times driving.

(04-28-2016, 01:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You might have a legitimate complaint here if there was proof presented that the parents acquiesced in his drinking and driving.  But usually you have to show that he was allowed to drink in his own home or that the parents provided the alcohol.

So did his parents approve of his drinking and driving?  Did they allow him to drunk in his own home?  Was there legit evidence presented to the judge to prove this?

A parent who knows that his child is a reckless drunk is not liable for the damages caused unless they could have prevented it in some way.

The cemetery was known for letting kids drink.  

It was actually just separated from their back yard by a fence.

(04-28-2016, 01:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If the opposing party made an offer to settle that was not presented to your family then you definitely have a case for malpractice.

What kind of proof do you have of this?

My lawyer said that they believed he wanted to settle, which seems logical seeing as they had no case.

He wanted to settle once but he lowballed us in litigation, which is typical for a first attempt.  Why would he have initiated it if he didn't want to settle.

(04-28-2016, 01:30 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Just curious.....
Was the party and accident during the day, or night ?

Party was at night.

Accident was at 10:12 p.m.

[fredtoast]

(04-28-2016, 01:53 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: He had a history of doing it, but it can't be "proven."  There's no other reason of why he would make such a bogus ruling.

I don't even know what reason you are talking about.  You said he had already decided to rule against you before your lawyer "rushed him".  

And why did the appeals court agree with him?

[fredtoast]

(04-28-2016, 01:53 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ok, so you're saying that we would have wrecked on a straight, wide highway, that didn't have many other cars on it while going the speed limit?

Yes.  It happens with drunk drivers all the time.

A driver either makes proper decisions or he does not.  In this case the driver was either too stupid or too intoxicated to drive.  Neither one of those things would have changed when he reached a public road. 

There was no defect with the road in the cemetery that caused him to crash.  That is the only way the cemetery could have been found liable, and this wreck was 100% driver error.

[fredtoast]

(04-28-2016, 01:53 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The clause was in our insurance that, if I was injured by an uninsured driver, that we'd be entitled to money.  So, no, there wasn't more to it, but way to act like you know what you're talking about.

I am sorry, but from what you said earlier there were negotiations as to the amount of the damages.

Why did you say there were negotiations if the amount was included in the insurance policy?  What was the amount of the settlement that he took the $200K for, and how much was he paid for the trial and appeal?

[fredtoast]

(04-28-2016, 01:53 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The judge made a bogus ruling.

It never went to an appeals court.

The jury awarded us 8 million dollars but put most of the fault on the driver, whom the judge let out of the case.

Sorry, but again I misunderstood you.  One of the judges decision was appealed. Which one was that?

And what was the other decision he made that was not appealed?

Who did the jury award the judgement against, because if the driver was out of the case that would have happened before the case went to a jury, right?

[fredtoast]

(04-28-2016, 01:53 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: My lawyer said that they believed he wanted to settle, which seems logical seeing as they had no case.

He wanted to settle once but he lowballed us in litigation, which is typical for a first attempt.  Why would he have initiated it if he didn't want to settle.

So the other party made an offer to settle but your family refused?

If that is what happened then you can't blame your lawyer.

[Au165]

Jury said you were wrong, I am going with the jury on this one.

[Sabretooth]

Arguing with some people is like playing chess with a pigeon.
Your best moves are ignored,while the pigeon knocks over the chess pieces and struts around like it has won.