People's Court - 8 22 2012 - Wednesday

The Dog Jumped On Me!

Daniel is suing his sister, Lizette, for $1000.00. This is to cover medical costs and pain and suffering caused by Lizette's dog when he scratched Michael, Daniel's son. Daniel's and Lizette's mother was visiting and she was staying with Lizette. One morning Daniel dropped off his two sons for his mom to babysit. About 15 minutes after he dropped off his sons, his mom called him to say the dog, a Boxer, had scratched Michael. Daniel told her to clean it and keep him posted. Lizette's boyfriend called Daniel and said the injury was really bad. Daniel said his wife would pick up Michael and take him to urgent care. Michael was treated for the dog scratch. He received several stitches in his eyelid. When the Judge looks closely at Michael's eyelid, she can clearly see a scar. This 7 year old boy is so cute. He tries to answer the questions and just gets cuter by the minute! After Michael received medical treatment, Daniel called Lizette with the amount of the bill and she said she would pay half. Daniel says that at first, Lizette refused to pay anything. She did not feel she was responsible because she did not know the kids would be at her house. Lizette explains that her mom set everything up without telling her. Even so, this is her dog that jumped on her nephew and hurt him. How does she not feel responsible to pay the bill? You would expect this from strangers, but not from family. She is lucky the injury was not worse. Legally, Lizette is found responsible to pay the bill and the additional pain and suffering. Morally, there should never have been a question. I do not understand what happens to people? Why not take responsibility for something your own dog does in your own home to your 7 year old nephew? What do you think?

There Are Roaches In The Apartment - I Cannot Live There!

Angie is suing Sylvia for $950.00. This is for an apartment that Angie rented from Sylvia. Before Angie moved in her belongings, she wanted to paint the apartment. While she was painting, she saw cockroaches. She notified Sylvia and Sylvia said she would take care of it. Sylvia went to Home Depot and purchased bug bombs. She set them off in the apartment. The next day, Angie continued painting and saw more cockroaches. She called Sylvia and told her she was not staying there. Angie wanted her money back. Sylvia offered her 1/2 the rent and the security deposit back. Angie wanted the entire amount back. Angie should have taken what Sylvia offered her. Legally, Angie is not entitled to any of the money back. The apartment is not unliveable, it was just "icky". A few cockroaches is not an infestation. The landlord was trying to fix the problem. With more time, Sylvia could have resolved the problem. I understand that Angie was not comfortable dealing with cockroaches in the apartment, but this is not a reason to move out and get her money back. It is reason for her to move out, but there is a cost to her decision. What would you have done? Would you have given your landlord time to solve the problem?

Hurricane Irene Strikes Again!

Daniel is suing the owners of the property next to his for $2162.13. This is for damage to Daniel's fence, car, flowerpot and his time. When Hurricane Irene hit, the tree next to Daniel's property fell and caused all of this damage. Jake is one of the owners of the property. Daniel has lived in his home for four years. The property next to him is a wooded lot that the owners want to build on. Some of the trees next to Daniel's property are not healthy. Daniel spoke to the owners and they said they are lawyers, not landscapers. That is a very healthy attitude! Maybe as lawyers, they can hire landscapers! Daniel called the town officials about the conditions of the trees. The town cited the owners of the property. There was numerous correspondence from the town to the owners prior to Hurricane Irene. They were sent letters, violations and citations. The only response from the owners was to send a landscaper to the property to take down a tree on the opposite side of the property. Daniel wanted the tree removed that was next to his property. The landscaper was not directed to remove that tree. Since the owners were put on notice about the condition of the tree, they could not use "The Act of God" defense. If they did not know about the condition of the tree, it would have been different. Knowing the tree was unhealthy made them responsible for the damage that was caused when the tree fell. Daniel is awarded $1912.13, the damages caused by the tree. He is not entitled to receive money for his time. All of this could have been avoided if the owners of the property would have removed the tree. I find it very interesting that they ignored the town notices, especially since they want to build a house on that property. They certainly do not seem to be very cooperative. What do you think?

 

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Thank you for joining me.

 

There comes a point in your life when you realize who really matters,

who never did, and who always will.     

- Unknown