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

RE: Negligence per se ( another misconception)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
This was the kind of supportive response I was expecting to receive. Mark
brings up a very common type of litigation that I found here in the desert
(or any tourist area that has a great many private communities (condo's,
country clubs, apartments etc).

Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark E. Deardorff [mailto:MarkD(--nospam--at)DandDEng.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 8:27 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Negligence per se ( another misconception)


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)aol.com [mailto:GEOHAK(--nospam--at)aol.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 8:00 AM
> To: seaint-return(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Cc: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> 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.
>