Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Negligence per se ( another misconception)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
This is certainly true. But, from a practical standpoint, settlements are often made to avoid the courtroom and costs associated with discovery.. I have been involved as an expert in cases where the only contention was the failure to design in accordance with the code - NO physical damages were even contended. But the discovery process continued until a settlement was negotiated.

One of the pioneers in HOA (home owners association) litigation is here in San Diego. The firm would hold seminars to entice HOA's to begin actions in the knowledge that defects are easy to find. Even the most insignificant problems - small cracks in driveways, doors out of plumb, etc. - were raised to a level of galactic proportion. 

On one case, 85 experts met in the field to tour the damage. The mass head shaking caused more damage than was present when we arrived. What we found was the two items previously mentioned.

The cynicism and sheer audacity of the legal profession is and always has been the problem - not any real or substantive cause. A lie, if repeated enough, becomes truth to the masses willing to believe the tripe that the profession preaches. (Gee, did I get carried away??!!)

Mark E. Deardorff, SE
Deardorff & Deardorff, Inc.
Ramona, CA 92065

> -----Original Message-----
> From: GEOHAK(--nospam--at) [mailto:GEOHAK(--nospam--at)]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 8:00 AM
> To: seaint-return(--nospam--at)
> Cc: seaint(--nospam--at)
> Subject: Re: Negligence per se ( another misconception)
> Charles O Greenlaw wrote:
> An EOR violating the building code is negligent per se
> This is true, however the plaintiff still must prove that 
> this violation actua
> lly AND proximately caused the damages complained of.  
> Negligence per se 
> simply proves that the EOR had a duty and had breached that 
> duty. The rest of 
> a negligence analysis must be proven by the plaintiff.
> You can be proven to have breached a duty, but if your acts did not 
> proximately caused the damages, you are NOT liable.