Archive for December, 2009

Harrassing Debt Collector Sued By Widow

Monday, December 28th, 2009

Dianne McLeod says that harassing debt collection phone calls made to her husband ultimately resulted in his having a heart attack and dying. She claims the same debt collection agency would call up to ten times daily, making Stanley red in the face and have chest pains.

Stanley already had suffered from two heart attacks before the collectors started their harassment. His second heart attack required he receive a helicopter ride to the hospital. One of the collection agents made light of his suffering, saying, “Why don’t you have that helicopter pick you up and bring that payment to the office.” This statement and more, all of which are illegal debt collection practices, were left on the McLeod’s message machine and will provide strong evidence against the agency in court.

The fact that the collection agency knew about his condition can certainly be used against them now that Mr. McLeod has passed, says a prominent Orange County personal injury attorney. Green Tree Servicing, the collection agency, denies the company is in anyway responsible for McLeod’s death. The trial is scheduled to start next month.

To read more about this case, see the article on CNN.

Courts Struggle to Evaluate The Value of Pets

Monday, December 21st, 2009

Most states have rules establishing who can sue for emotional distress after a victim’s death and which actions can result in these types of damages. In a recent California case, the court of appeals refused to place any value on the loss of a pet dog, other than the monetary value of the dog itself. The court also refused to allow the family to claim compensation for loss of companionship.

In other courts however, dogs have been given more value in recent years. An Oregon decision said that an owner may claim damages if he can “prove [a dog’s] special value to him by showing its qualities, characteristics and pedigree . . . .”

Louisiana, Texas, Illinois and Florida all recognize the value a pet may have to his owners, and as times change, it seems more states may become open to this concept. Orange County personal injury attorneys hope that eventually, even California may change its ways.

In Vermont, a case is coming up before the state’s supreme court to decide if Denis and Sarah Scheele can claim emotional distress compensation from the person who shot and killed their dog. “We’re still working toward having the courts recognizing the true value of companion animals. They’re members of the family, not mere property,” Sarah Scheele said.

To read more about these important issues, see the articles on Oregon Animal Law and Sphere. Image Via Tambako The Jaguar [Flickr].

Car Accident Results In $21 Million Verdict

Monday, December 14th, 2009

JohnathAn Iraq War veteran has been awarded over $21 million after a devastating car accident resulted in a number of fractures and a stroke that left him with permanent injuries. The vet, Michael Nelson, was only 27 years old when he was rear ended by a Hillyard Inc. truck driver.

Nelson’s Orange County personal injury attorney says the veteran was in a passenger vehicle that was traveling only 15 miles per hour, when he was rear ended by the van that was going over 80 miles per hour. Nelson suffered from a broken femur and a number of other fractures. A blot clot caused by the accident result in his suffering from a stroke soon after as well. The stroke, unfortunately, damaged most of the left portion of his brain.

At the time of the accident, Nelson was studying at the California Art Institute after he completed three tours of duty in Iraq.

To read more about the accident and the settlement, see the article on AboutLawsuits.com. Illustrative image courtesy of Johnath [Flickr].

Women Suing Wireless Companies For Mother’s Car Crash

Monday, December 7th, 2009

scottc320

Jennifer Smith lost her mother, Linda, when a Ford pickup crashed into Linda’s Toyota Rav 4. The driver of the Ford, Christopher Hill, claimed he caused the accident because was distracted by a call on his cell phone.

Jennifer is now taking action, not against Mr. Hill, but against the wireless carriers who provided the man with cellphone service while he was driving. She believes the companies should have seen the potential danger associated with driving while talking on the cell phone and should have provided adequate warning about these dangers.

Experts, such as Orange County personal injury attorneys, say the case presents a lot of challenges and may be unlikely to win. Still, these experts also agree that the action raises important questions as to personal responsibility on the road. A similar court case went through Indiana in 2003 and the case was dismissed upon appeal, as the court agreed that the crash was still caused by driver inattention –not cellphone use.

Sprint Nextel has rejected the claim of negligence and says they have included safety messaging on their website, user manuals, advertising and packaging. Mr. Hill has also denied that the companies are responsible for his actions, saying, “It’s our choice if we’re going to talk on the cellphone while driving or walking down the street or in the office,” he said. “The cellphone companies don’t say you should talk on the phone and drive.”

To read more about this lawsuit, see the article in the New York Times. Image Via scottc320 [Flickr]