real legal cases -- opinions please

[Briar Rose 7457]

these are all cases I have handled. what do you think should have happened?I'll post the resolution for each case tomorrow.

1. a lawyer represents a woman getting a divorce. during the trial he is all professional, but after the trial is over and she gets her divorce (and a substantial cash award), they begin a romantic relationship. lawyer leaves his wife and moves in with the former client. he and former client buy a house together. she spends a good eeal of money on the lawyer. when the relationship ends, she sues him for legal malpractice, emotional distress, etc.


2. husband and wife own a house. husband decides to commit arson and burn down the house for the insurance proceeds. wife has no idea what husband is planning. as a result of the fire, the house is damaged, and a lot of personal property -- such as clothing, stereos, etc. - is destroyed. husband and wife make a claim against their homewonwer's policy.

3. a man is driving home one night when his car skids on ice and gets stuck in a snowbank. he tries rocking the car (which he's owned for less than a month) back and forth, without success. after he's done this for a few minutes, the car's engine catches fire. he climbs out of the car and hurts his knees while climbing over the snowbank. a witness claims that the car was rcoking back and forth for at least 10 minutes, and that the driver walked away from the vehicle apparently unhurt. driver saw a doctor the next day for medical treatment of a preexisting disease, but didn't seek treatment for his knee injury until 2 weeks later. he sues the car manufacturer.

 

[JAP]

1. a lawyer represents a woman getting a divorce. during the trial he is all professional, but after the trial is over and she gets her divorce (and a substantial cash award), they begin a romantic relationship. lawyer leaves his wife and moves in with the former client. he and former client buy a house together. she spends a good eeal of money on the lawyer. when the relationship ends, she sues him for legal malpractice, emotional distress, etc. THE WOMAN PROBABLY WON THIS ONE.


2. husband and wife own a house. husband decides to commit arson and burn down the house for the insurance proceeds. wife has no idea what husband is planning. as a result of the fire, the house is damaged, and a lot of personal property -- such as clothing, stereos, etc. - is destroyed. husband and wife make a claim against their homewonwer's policy. IF HUSBAND WAS FOUND OUT OR IT WAS DETERMINED THE FIRE WAS ARSON THERE IS NOTHING THE WIFE COULD DO. I WOULD SAY THEY LOST THE CLAIM.

3. a man is driving home one night when his car skids on ice and gets stuck in a snowbank. he tries rocking the car (which he's owned for less than a month) back and forth, without success. after he's done this for a few minutes, the car's engine catches fire. he climbs out of the car and hurts his knees while climbing over the snowbank. a witness claims that the car was rcoking back and forth for at least 10 minutes, and that the driver walked away from the vehicle apparently unhurt. driver saw a doctor the next day for medical treatment of a preexisting disease, but didn't seek treatment for his knee injury until 2 weeks later. he sues the car manufacturer. I WOULD SAY DRIVER LOST THIS ONE. IF THERE WAS WITNESS AND A DOCTOR TO TESTIFY IT WOULD BE PRETTY DIFFICULT TO SWAY ME.

I can't wait to hear the decisions. I am probably wrong on all accounts but is amazing to hear the stories.

 

[CookieGVB]

#1 - I'm going with the plaintiff

#2 - Husband's in jail - wife may have collected for personal effects.

#3 - No money for the injury (why is it the car manufacturer's fault that the car skidded on ice?), but money for replacement of the car because of the engine fire


And if I'm wrong, that's why I'm not a lawyer.

 

[ryanpatricksmom]

In the first, I would say that she may be due some financial claim against the former lawyer due to their living arrangement, but my sense is that the malpractice claim is a day late and a dollar short (unless of course the money that she spent on him during the relationship were legal fees).

In the second, if the homeowner's policy is in both spouses' names then the criminal actions of the husband probably negate the claims of the wife as well, although I would think that such matters are addressed in the exclusions.

In the last, the auto catching fire may be determined to be the fault of the manufacturer but the injury should be considered as part of the accident claim.

 

[annemariec]

Ok, I'm jumping in...

1.) Should she win? A reluctant yes. He was privvy to sensitive information and it could be construed as him taking advantage of her. She probably won. Although it's sticky since the lawyer essentially finished representing her once the case was over and she and the lawyer were acting on their own accord. The lawyer took a risk in getting himself involved by leaving his wife.... (playing the devil's advocate here...). Sticky, sticky, sticky.

2.) Should they win, no. I'd too would say they lost the claim. Husband goes to jail for fraud and wife files for divorce.

3.) Should he win, no. Going out on a limb here, as crazy as the world is --- I think the guy won this one. He might reason that the injury worsened over time and he came to the conclusion that it was because of the faulty car. Might have a doctor to back up his claim.

I'll be checking back for the verdicts! Thanks.

Annemarie

 

[skuttle]

#1: I don't think it's malpractice.

#2: Ins'r will deny coverage and should win. Wife may have recourse against husband if she knew nothing about the arson.

#3: I don't think he should get anything for the alleged "injury".

 

[Steve H.]

1) Plantiff probably won (and probably should have). A relationship with a former client is no less reprehensible than a relationship with a current client.

2) Probably lost, due to filing the claim together (assuming it was proven that the husband was an arson).

3) Plaintiff probably won, due to having to escape from the car while it was burning. Do I think he should have received damages for the physical injury? No. Should he have received a settlement on the car catching fire? Of course.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Ha Ha fun...OK I'll take a crack at it!

1. Plantiff lost.
They maintained a professional relationship during her divorce so I am going to go out on a limb and say the charges are only applicable to the time spent on her case.

2. Husband went to jail, wife divorced him, she collected the whole ball of wax.

3. Driver not only receives money for car replacement but also wins for his knee injury. A "witness" cannot determine the extent of a knee injury from looking at it. It requires a qualified doctor assessment and that will override an "eyewitness" in this case.
(Really they paid what he asked & FAST because they don't want the bad press)

HAHAHA I am sure I am TOTALLY wrong but this was fun...thanks BR

 

[SonjaB]

What I see are three colossal wastes of tax dollars. Everybody lost something except the attorneys, sorry BR, no offense intended, but that's the way I see these things.

 

[DonnaS]

I'm not a lawyer-- nor do I play one on TV-- so I'm not even going to wager a guess-- especially since laws vary from state to state.

 

[nativetxn]

I'm not going to guess at the outcomes but I'm looking forward to seeing how these issues were resolved.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

So BR what were the outcomes????

 

[TRAPPED-PARENT]

Not sure how the courts will judge ... but this is what I think:

1. There is no malpractice as this all happened after the closure. Emotional distress - Yea, but if they didn't marry, so what. I'd say it is her tough luck unless she can prove he misrepresented himself to get money out of her (fraud).

2. They held the house and insurance jointly? Then she is out of luck because her husband commited arson. She could try to sue her husband for compensation (maybe?) but not the insurance company.

3. No to the driver as well. Witness that he misused the car prior to the fire and that he did not have a physical problem immediately following the incident and did not seek immediate medical care relative to the incident.

Now what the legal profession does with this is another matter, but the above is what I think common sense dictates!

 

[ChibiJones]

1. I don't think the woman should recover because the professional relationship was over. Plus, she chose to engage in the relationship with him. I don't see where the legal malpractice would come in since he won an large award for her. All break-ups have an element of emotional distress by there very nature. She needs to prove something more along the lines of abuse. Now, there may be fraud & misrepresentation involved, but not malpractice.

2. The wife is probably outta luck with the insurance company because it was arson. I think a spouse would be assumed to be privy to the other's plans. How could you prove she didn't know? I certainly hope she did divorce the loser, but I don't know if he would have any money if he's burning the house down for the insurance.

3. You don't say specifically what he's suing for. If it's for the car catching fire, I'd say he has a claim. The car manufacturer should have protected the gas tank better. Cars get stuck in the snow & mud all the time & don't blow up. If he's suing for his knee, I could see where he wouldn't have time to carefully get out of the car, but the delay in medical treatment would need to be explained.

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

1. when they bought the house together, he represented her at the closing. so he was still her attonrey after the divorce was final. it was too risky to go to trial. case settled for six figures.

2.the bank that held the mortgage was entitled to be paid for structural damage to the house, regardless of whether it was arson. the prosecutor didn't get a conviction. as for personal property, anything the wife said was hers was paid for, anything he said belonged to him was not paid.

3.the no fault insurer paid his medical bills -- injuries sustained exiting a car are covered, and there wasn't enough to disprove the injury. the car manufacturer was sued for pain and suffering etc, as well as damage to the car, and paid a token settlement of $1,000.

 

[nativetxn]

Thanks, BR. I was curious to see how the cases turned out.

 

[annemariec]

Thanks, BR! That was interesting. I hope you do it again.

Annemarie