Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's what I was saying pages ago. There is no reasonable expectation that a counter clerk doing work intake at a glass shop is going to know what is needed. Even the lamp manufacturer probably had disclaimers regarding the original product and not being responsible for consequential damages. The glass shop may make a settlement offer just to make this go away, since litigation is expensive and time-consuming, but I still would not hold them liable. I'm sure there are plenty of similar cases to reference.
And again: It looks very painful and I am sorry this happened to you, Robyn. I'm not trying to "lay blame", just saying that maybe this injury is one where bad things happen, but others are not necessarily at fault.
Last edited by TheShadow; 05-16-2016 at 08:09 AM..
not every accident is the result of actionable liability .
sometimes the accident can be caused by others as a result of an action by someone else .
in this case hiring someone to do work without making sure they are really qualified or understand the ramifications of dealing with such a dangerous product because based on their line of work which is windows and shower glass they don't know what they don't know about electrical stuff .
in effect she hired that handyman to do electrical work knowing he is not a qualified electrician then wants to blame them for damages as a result of not hiring a qualified person for the job .
in this instance robynn did not know that electrical items should not be serviced by unqualified business's not in that field and the business being not qualified did not know what they didn't know and without instruction did not know it was not just fitting a standard glass .
perhaps it was just an accident with no negligence on anyone's part , just poor assumptions . that is the way i would likely have seen it as a juror and awarded nothing . .
had an electrical supply house repaired it wrong she would have had a solid case because she did hire someone who should have been qualified and in the business
Last edited by mathjak107; 05-16-2016 at 09:49 AM..
The glass shop may make a settlement offer just to make this go away, since litigation is expensive and time-consuming,
In my book that would be all that matters, that they pay. WHY they pay wouldn't even be my concern. Especially since I WOULD hold them liable. They shouldn't have taken the job on in the first place.
Just like I'd expect the glass guy to be the one to know TEMPERED glass should be used in certain applications (like balconies, or staircases -- after all he's not a builder or and engineer…but I would imagine people would think he should know that) -- I think he should know certain glass should be used in various lamps…..even though he's not the "lamp maker" he should know that other thing as well.
As the lay person if I take my job to repair person. If they accept the job, IT SI ON THEM, to do it correctly.
Maybe a bad example, but if I take I take my car to a boat maker….should he take that job just because I asked him to make the repair, or should he say, "uh, we don't fix cars we fix boats?" As I've said, there are tradesmen and repairmen and manufacturers every day who refuse jobs or turn away customers -- because they don't do the kinds of work the customer is asking for. It's NOT the customer's responsibility if the PROFESSIONAL doesn't' know what he doesn't' know. IF you take the job you're liable.
I had a salvage fireplace mantel that I wonted refinished. IF I had taken it to a FLOOR refinisher (after all to me the customer wood is wood, just like glass is glass) -- should the floor guy have taken the job, or should he have said, "I don't do mantels, I do floors." After all for all he knows wood near a fireplace needs a special finish on it….(just like wood in the water would need another kind of protection) if he doesn't know that, then he ought to think twice about taking the job. IF he DID take the job and did it incorrectly…yes I would hold him responsible.
The glass guy didn't do that…and he needs to compensate for that.
You are a lawyer so why would you put all of this information out on the Internet where it is very easily discoverable? And after reading the entire thread, you would be a very irritating plaintiff. I would reward you $0.00 (zero) just for that fact.
Also, a 30 yo lamp bites the dust? Throw it out.
I haven't posted a bad review of the outfit on Facebook or Google or Yelp or elsewhere. Haven't even mentioned the name of the outfit. I just posted an inquiry on what I believe is a somewhat intimate chat board.
Now that you mention it - what do you think it's worth for a company to avoid negative online publicity these days - which I can certainly deliver if I care to? Robyn
What is weird about a lot of these messages is I don't think people understand trial dynamics.
I can't imagine a defense lawyer standing up and saying to a jury - my client was incompetent to handle this job and the plaintiff should have known we were incompetent (after she had hired a glass scientist to study the issue at length) . But my client didn't care. All it cared about was making $20 (which was what the company charged me). So it did the job. Buyers beware when it asks rednecks like us to handle work for them (yee haw).
I don't think that defense line would play in any part of Florida. Robyn
I am aware that injuries can be much more painful than they appear. During the initial stages of treatment for breast cancer I wore a bra similar to the Theraport Post Surgery Bra. This type of bra not only helps post surgery but is fantastic for a woman going through the burning radiation pain. Possibly it will help you as well.
Thank you for that name. Those bras look like they have nice wide comfy cushioned straps that might work for me. Will take a closer look the next couple of days.
I am - knock wood - very lucky not to have had breast cancer. It's kind of a big deal cause here where I live. When it comes to this (and other things as well):
unlike other business areas , testing safety in electrical items is something that is done by UL LABS . items are tested for safety and code compliance by underwriters labs and when tested as a package they receive a UL approval number and ul stamp of approval .
you can go to a lumber yard and buy wood and replace all your cabinets or the doors and no problem , but when it comes to electrical stuff the only way it can be considered truly safe is by meeting it's ul approval as tested with all the same oem parts .
do you know that simply interchanging circuit breakers in your panel with another make , that may be in all ways identical , leaves you with a panel with no ul approval which many local fire codes frown upon as well as there is a good chance an electrical inspector would reject it if it is new work and had to be inspected .
even if that fixture had non oem heat resistant glass put in , it still fails to meet ul approval and as such can never be considered safe .
our panel building shop was ul certified and everything we built had to be exactly as they approved . a wire could not even be re-routed .
taking a lighting fixture to a glazier and not an electrical supply house would be a big mistake unknown to robynn as when it comes to anything electrical the dangers and requirements will not be known outside the electrical industry . . to a glazier a fixture glass is no different then a glass for an end table , other wise they wouldn't be glaziers , they could be electricians for a whole lot more money ..
if i was serving as expert testimony in this case i would be a little annoyed at the glass shop for getting involved with electrical items but i would find more fault with robynn for seeking out a business to repair it that more then likely would not know electrical code ,fixture engineering and about needing ul approval even though she likely would not know her self .
but that is the risk someone takes when they seek help from other unqualified business's outside the electrical industry .
if robynn got a handyman to repair an electrical problem she thought was simple and there was a fire because of a code violation by someone un-qualified , who do you think would have most of the liability or even all the liability put on them ?
it would likely not be the handyman since robynn hired the wrong person to handle the problem , whether she knew it or not . .
there is a whole lot more going on here then the glass place fit a glass to her fixture she brought them so they are responsible ..
what if robynn loaned her car to someone with no license and they had a horrible accident whether she was aware aware of that fact or not ? the burden is on her to know the status of the person she loans her car to and it is also her responsibility to make sure anyone who does repairs on electrical items is qualified and not leave it them to know if they are or not .
don't forget they only know what they know but don't know what they don't know and hence don't know they are not qualified .
but that is just my opinion of this case which unless a juror or attorney reads my comments on city data does not count for a thing .
That question has a relatively easy answer. Let's start with the premise that when you buy car insurance in most states anyone whom you allow to drive the vehicle is covered as a "permissive user" under your car insurance policy. This is done precisely because the state legislature doesn't want uninsured drivers on the road. If I loan my car to a half blind fool who drives over a pedestrian in a crosswalk, the pedestrian (or his heirs) can bring a suit against the driver of the car. My insurance company is on the hook up to my limits of liability because I allowed that person to drive my car.
There is also something in the law called "negligent entrustment". The concept is that if I am careless in who I allow to drive my car, operate my ATV, or to whom I loan my power boat, I can be potentially be held responsible for the harm they do. This is not automatic. Its contingent on my proving in court that I was careless in choosing this person to loan these objects too. Important evidence would be their driving record, whether I knew they were an alcoholic or a drug user, and if I knew they had been in multiple accidents before.
I know you really don't want accept this, Mathjak, but businesses have certain obligations. Whenever a product is sold a warranty of sorts usually goes with it (whether its written or not). In this case, it would be that the glass was fit for the particular purpose for which it was sold.
It was not and someone was hurt because of it. You might face what is called a "directed verdict" on this issue of liability in court. If I represented Robyn, I would ask for one in this case. This would mean the only issue the jury had left to determine is that of damages.
Not more than $15,000. Your case is tantamount to a dog bite. You could probably settle the case out of court for a few thousand.
Don't get me started on dog bites. My husband has been bitten by dogs twice. When he was running. In both cases - he was very fortunate. Only very small wounds on his leg. The dogs weren't strays and had had rabies shots. So my husband didn't have to get rabies shots. He did have to take prophylactic antibiotics to try to avoid a heart valve infection (he has a heart valve issue). And the antibiotics worked. Note that Florida is a strict liability state when it comes to dog bites. Dogs aren't entitled to "one free bite".
BTW - there are some pretty horrific dog bite cases. Which might be worth hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. Same when it comes to burns. Or auto accidents for that matter. Injuries come in many flavors. Robyn
That question has a relatively easy answer. Let's start with the premise that when you buy car insurance in most states anyone whom you allow to drive the vehicle is covered as a "permissive user" under your car insurance policy. This is done precisely because the state legislature doesn't want uninsured drivers on the road. If I loan my car to a half blind fool who drives over a pedestrian in a crosswalk, the pedestrian (or his heirs) can bring a suit against the driver of the car. My insurance company is on the hook up to my limits of liability because I allowed that person to drive my car.
There is also something in the law called "negligent entrustment". The concept is that if I am careless in who I allow to drive my car, operate my ATV, or to whom I loan my power boat, I can be potentially be held responsible for the harm they do. This is not automatic. Its contingent on my proving in court that I was careless in choosing this person to loan these objects too. Important evidence would be their driving record, whether I knew they were an alcoholic or a drug user, and if I knew they had been in multiple accidents before.
I know you really don't want accept this, Mathjak, but businesses have certain obligations. Whenever a product is sold a warranty of sorts usually goes with it (whether its written or not). In this case, it would be that the glass was fit for the particular purpose for which it was sold.
It was not and someone was hurt because of it. You might face what is called a "directed verdict" on this issue of liability in court. If I represented Robyn, I would ask for one in this case. This would mean the only issue the jury had left to determine is that of damages.
In Florida - we go one one step further. We have something called the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. So the owner of a car (and any insurance company that covers the car) is liable for anyone he/she allows to drive his/her car with permission. There are a few limited exceptions to both the rule and the insurance coverage - like if the car was the getaway car in an armed robbery. But not many.
FWIW - under Florida products liability law - I think I would be entitled to a directed verdict - or perhaps even a summary judgment. And that punitive damages might be in play.
BTW - do any people here have any idea how much negative publicity might be worth when it comes to a local company - even a larger local company? Like if I started to detail my experience/write reviews on places like Yelp or the like? So the issue here is not only what I might get - but what a company might avoid in terms of negative publicity. I've never mentioned the company's name on line - or written a review. I assume if I settle this case - I will sign a confidentiality agreement. And - if I can't reach a settlement - I will start to write reviews.
I'm going out of the country next week for a while - and will deal with the particulars of the case when I return in a couple of weeks. Robyn
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
