dog bite

undefinedWhat is the name of your state?california
after being warned not to provoke my dog, a friend's friend got bit by my dog at my house. i had no insurance because i was moving that week. this happened 2 yrs. ago. the guys wife said not to worry because it was her husband's fault. there were witnesses. anyway, this guy claims he suffered back injuries in the struggle. (there was no struggle). my question is if i lose this case, (i have no attorney).... i have no income except social security benefits from husband dying, and i do own a car. can they take my car away from me for payment? i am undergoing psychiactric treatment for the stress of this... HELP......

[john123456]

What was the date of the dog bite?

undefined
the bite was 11/10/02.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by riotgirl

can they take my car away from me for payment?

Already asked and answered in your other post at: [url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=195502[/url]

Originally Posted by riotgirl

the bite was 11/10/02.

Personal injury cases, including those arising out of dog bites, that occurred on or after 1/1/03 have a two-year statute of limitations (must be filed within two years after the incident) under California Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. The old statute of limitations was one year. Since this dog bite occurred before 1/1/03, if your friend's friend is only filing a lawsuit now (i.e. he hasn't filed by 11/10/03), you can file a Demurrer, get a hearing date (call the court), and appear at the hearing, OR ask an attorney to prepare a Demurrer based on the ground the action is barred by the statute of limitations and to appear at the hearing (unless this is in small claims court in which case in California an attorney can't appear on your behalf). (In some counties, you can pull up a summary of what was filed and when at the court's website.)

(Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 doesn't apply retroactively to lapsed claims, as decided by the court of appeal. i.e. the claim here would have lapsed under the old statute of limitations on 11/10/03, and the new statute of limitations wouldn't apply retroactively.)

P.S. In CA you have 30 days from when you're personally served with a summons and complaint to file a response, including any Demurrer.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by OC3902

Personal injury cases

Absolutely Incredible!!

You can manage to find the California Codes and even read them.

Yet, you can't figure out what 'duplicate post' means, or that your answer has asbolutely NOTHING to do with the question that was asked ("can they take my car away from me for payment?").

Originally Posted by JETX

You can manage to find the California Codes and even read them.

Yet, you can't figure out what 'duplicate post' means, or that your answer has asbolutely NOTHING to do with the question that was asked ("can they take my car away from me for payment?"). Not a normal twit, but a nitwit!!

I noted the duplicate post and had read the duplicate post and your response. This was your statement in the other thread: "In California, a judgment debtor can chose between two judgment exemptions, each has pros and cons."

If the Judge sustains (grants) a Demurrer based on the ground that it's barred by the statute of limitations, the case would in essence be dismissed, likely with prejudice. Explain how there can be a judgment if the case is dismissed. Explain how her car would be taken away from her if the case is dismissed and there's no judgment.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by OC3902

I noted the duplicate post and had read the duplicate post and your response. This was your statement in the other thread: "In California, a judgment debtor can chose between two judgment exemptions, each has pros and cons."

If the Judge sustains (grants) a Demurrer based on the ground that it's barred by the statute of limitations, the case would in essence be dismissed, likely with prejudice. Explain how there can be a judgment if the case is dismissed. Explain how her car would be taken away from her if the case is dismissed and there's no judgment.

1) Since you knew that this was a duplicate (and even had the link to the previous post), why didn't you simply put your drivel on that post rather than continue to follow the posters screwup??
2) The answer on the other post was to the questions the poster asked. Your post, however, goes far into the legal 'world' where the poster didn't ask and very probably can't follow anyway. How the hell do you expect this poster to be able to make a valid presentation at the hearing to determine the validity of the demurrer?? Simply, he can't. So, your post would have been more accurate to explain a demurrer and to discuss it with an attorney. In essence, your post was of little, if any, real benefit to the OP. Further, in my opinion, the demurrer would not work as there is no clear indication that the complaint is unclear or omits an essential element of fact. Clearly, the time to have raised the SOL defense was AT the trial... not after the fact.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Actually, JetX, I have to agree with the information supplied by OC3902. If you look again at the original post #1, and then at response #3, our writer "opened the door" to questions concerning the Statute of Limitations when she said, "this happened 2 yrs. ago" and then later gave the actual date of the incident.

So, notwithstanding the fact that you DID in fact point out that this was a duplicate post, and that OC3902 should have posted to that other thread, the fact remains that the information given was accurate - - including the suggested use of a "demurrer". A demurrer, in essence, is saying to the court, "So what?" "So what" if my dog bit the plaintiff, your honor. The fact is, the plaintiff's action is time-barred and the action should be dismissed."

IAAL

[Mistchf]

[quote=JETX]1) . How the hell do you expect this poster to be able to make a valid presentation at the hearing to determine the validity of the demurrer?? Simply, he can't.


Simply...it seems that since her husband died, she's a she..
Why all the fuss?

Originally Posted by JETX

1) Since you knew that this was a duplicate (and even had the link to the previous post), why didn't you simply put your drivel on that post rather than continue to follow the posters screwup??

The other thread does not include all the facts such as the date of the dog bite and I thought it would have been easier for a reader follow the facts here than to go back and forth between the 2 threads. You say you have a problem with continuing the thread yet you posted to me stating nothing about it, meanwhile continuing the thread yourself.

It was not my intent to continue what you call the "posters screwup" (I wouldn't have characterized it as such so disrepectfully), but if You had such a problem with continuance of the thread, why can't you ask the administrator/moderator to combine the 2 threads.

It was not "drivel"; I didn't raise the issue of statute of limitations without reading all the posts; I considered all the facts posted here and the other thread, including the date of injury.

Originally Posted by JETX

Your post, however, goes far into the legal 'world' where the poster didn't ask and very probably can't follow anyway. How the hell do you expect this poster to be able to make a valid presentation at the hearing to determine the validity of the demurrer?? Simply, he can't. So, your post would have been more accurate to explain a demurrer and to discuss it with an attorney. In essence, your post was of little, if any, real benefit to the OP.

The information I gave was intended to be comprehensive. Sorry it was information you couldn't follow; it's clear to me you're not familiar with certain civil procedure concepts. I had considered all the facts that the OP posted, including the date of injury, and California civil procedure. I didn't want her to risk a judgment if there was something she could possibly do about it.

I did suggest to the OP that one option is to ask an attorney to prepare a Demurrer and to appear at the hearing (and that if this is in small claims court, an attorney in CA can't appear on the OP's behalf). It seems many people come here wanting to handle their cases themselves, but I do think it IS better to seek an attorney....and I did suggest it. You can't say there's no benefit if she can raise a defense.

Originally Posted by JETX

Further, in my opinion, the demurrer would not work as there is no clear indication that the complaint is unclear or omits an essential element of fact. Clearly, the time to have raised the SOL defense was AT the trial... not after the fact.

Assuming there was a Trial.

And all the complaints I've seen indicate at least the date of the alleged incident. You wouldn't want to risk not filing a Demurrer, if it's not too late, and waiving the statute of limitations defense.

Originally Posted by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

My response:

Actually, JetX, I have to agree with the information supplied by OC3902. If you look again at the original post #1, and then at response #3, our writer "opened the door" to questions concerning the Statute of Limitations when she said, "this happened 2 yrs. ago" and then later gave the actual date of the incident.

So, notwithstanding the fact that you DID in fact point out that this was a duplicate post, and that OC3902 should have posted to that other thread, the fact remains that the information given was accurate - - including the suggested use of a "demurrer". A demurrer, in essence, is saying to the court, "So what?" "So what" if my dog bit the plaintiff, your honor. The fact is, the plaintiff's action is time-barred and the action should be dismissed."

IAAL

THANK YOU.

undefined to all you posters that were so smart*** to me.. thanks for nothing! this is all new to me and i simply made a mistake by double posting.. SORRY.. if i could have afforded an attorney, i would have gotten one. (duh). all i wanted to know was could the plaintiff take my car IF i lost!!!!!!!!!!!! fyi.. the plaintiff filed on 11/6/03... i guess i didn't realize the seriousness of this at that time. i only hope the witnesses' statements, along with major lies from the plaintiff win my case. and to the posters who think i'm a stupid woman.... well... i guess i learned my lesson on thinking this site was here to be "helped", not a place to be shot down.... anyway, thanks to those who tried......

I thought this was a site to help people too, not a place to be shot down. I didn't think you were a 'stupid woman' at all, and I wasn't criticizing the double posting. Good luck with your case.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Actually, JetX, I have to agree with the information supplied by OC3902.

As my dear old grandpappy use to say, "Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do."

Again, you clearly misunderstand the issue. Do you really think that the OP is going to know the demurrer process or even advance it into the court?? Of course not, especially since the OP has already said they do not have, nor can they afford, an attorney.

So, you two can argue demurrer all you want, to no REAL benefit. So, in this case, you might win in moot court..... but not in real life.

Further, I still stand on the FACT that the entire issue of the original post is "Can they take my car?". You can try to 'spin your error' any way you want... that is still the ONLY issue that was raised by BOTH DUPLICATE posts!! There is NO issue of what defense, or can I change the outcome, or any other issues raised by 'Orange County'. Following OC's logic, why not just recommend that the OP file for bankruptcy, as that could also be perceived as a remedy to avoid a claim or judgment for the dog bite??
Jeeze guys, wake up to the FACTS!!