How might a judge view the following case...

[seniorjudge]

The key to OP's problem has little to do with his admission or the oral contract. The judge may believe OP + his wife by a preponderance of the evidence or he/she may not (and he said/she said is why we have judges, to determine who is lying and who is not). But in my mind, that does not matter.

You have proof of damages (estimates). You have this guy stopping following fiberglass falling from his truck. Lets forget about the entire oral contract business for a second. He did not properly secure fiberglass from his truck -- he probably did not have it tied down, he could have been traveling too fast with it in the back of the truck. I'd look at this case from a negligence perspective. He had the duty to properly secure that fiberglass. He breached that duty because the stuff got loose. That actually and proximately caused damage to the Plaintiff's car.

And your wife, you, and probably even he will agree that the fiberglass came from his truck.

Judgment for Plaintiff in the amount of the estimate (but you'll probably need to have the person who gave you the estimate come in and testify -- since you didn't pay it yet, you don't have personal knowledge of the reasonableness of the repairs, and the estimate is likely to be hearsay).

Carl, go to court and post back with results.

 

[djohnson]

I don't think it's gonna be that easy. I also think you will run into the problem of time. Because you have waited so long to even try and contact. He could claim that it wasn't the damage he caused or is worse and you are trying to bilk him. The time factor, no matter your reasons, is not in your favor.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

If I was wrong, the attorneys on this forum would be all over me in a hot second.


Some of them just want you for your body... Doc..

This guy is a Troll with the JW syndrome and no sense of humor, telling senior members how to act... and preaching. Oy... What bridge did he crawl out from under?

WOW!
Thanks for your support.
There is no reason for me to defend myself to this TX Troll, WOW! Butt they brag that things are bigger in TX so it follows logically that TX Trolls are a bigger pain in the @$$.

Much Ado About Nothing by William Shakespeare, comes to mind.
Carl J Stonehead oops I mean Stoneham, has a terminal case of verborrhea that no number of masters will cure Talk about a waste of money for this this reprobate and or stonehead to get an education, hopefully on his own dime.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

I don't think it's gonna be that easy. I also think you will run into the problem of time. Because you have waited so long to even try and contact. He could claim that it wasn't the damage he caused or is worse and you are trying to bilk him. The time factor, no matter your reasons, is not in your favor.

I agree, a $400 scratch in a modern bumper is so minor as to be difficult to see let alone determine if in fact it was even caused by the fiberglass hitting the car and since so much time has passed, would be difficult to prove since the damage was not verified by the insurance company. I think the answer is blowing in the wind and there is some reason OP was not forthright in the begining.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Q: Can I sue him for the estimate (I'd hate to pay for the repairs and then have him back out (since they're cosmetic)).

A: Sue him for whatever dollar damages you have.


Q: Does my wife staying in the car mean I'm the only witness to the verbal contract?

A: If she didn't hear anything, then the answer is yes.


Q: If she calls him and he agrees to get back to us with the number for a body shop, does that make her a second witness?

A: To what?


Q: What proof am I lacking (I should be able to get the phone records)?

A: You are lacking proof that an agreement was made. He will say y'all agreed that there was no damage and you both went on your separate ways.


Q: Any other suggestions? Storng case? Weak case? etc

A: You have a very weak case.


rmet4nzkx gave you the BEST advice in her first post. The second best advice was in her next post.

Why you don't want to listen to her is beyond me because you have a lousy case. You have damages (obviously) but no way to prove the guy did it to you.

Thanks Judgy
OP has been all over the SCC forum trolling, suffering from a bad case of verborrhea and constipation of the mind. Perhaps the judge will order a high colonic?

 

[CarlJStoneham]

The point about the time span is odd to me. Here's how I see it. Tell me where I'm not seeing it like the judge might...

1. The fiberglass comes off his truck, hits our Highlander (My wife has confirmed that she remembers us being "about 5-6 car lengths back"). We pull over, he asks that we handle it "off the insurance" and we agree. (Yes, I know this was dumb, but we usualy take people at their word. To date, we're way ahead on trusting people. This guy is proving to be exception (but that's a digression and not something I assume the judge would care about)).

2. He gives us his cards and asks us to call him when we have an estimate.

3. 3 weeks later, we have an estimate and I call several times. After about a week or two, I get him and offer to take it to a bodyshop of his choosing if he feels the dealership is too high (which I assume it is). He says he'll call back the next day with the number of a body shop.

4. 5-6 weeks later, after leaving 12+ messages on his cell-phone (the number on one card), I try several times at work and he's not there (he owns the business, so I assume he comes and goes as he pleases). SCC now starts to look like the only option. Up to this point, I have had no intention of suing since I assumed he was just busy. Perhaps my preference to NOT rush to court makes me look less-than-forthright? If that's so, then that is the saddest commentary on our society yet. Those who don't rush to court are guilty of something? Wow But anyway...

So what I want to know is why the judge would look at this in a negative light (aside from being in a bad mood that day or something similarly capricious). As far as *I* can tell, the only thing I did "wrong" was not call the police and get a report. Everything else, from my POV, has simply been trying to work with him. The damage to the bumper doesn't affect how the car drives or its safety (confirmed at the body shop), so it's not something I need done yesterday. If the guy calls tomorrow and has a shop that'll do it for $200, we'll go to that shop and have them do it. I'd just like my wife's bumper to be fixed. It appears SCC may be the option since he's not returning our calls (she got him on the phone yesterday from a different number (he answered immediately) and he said he'd call right back and never did). I'm getting a sense (from those posting with useful evidence) that I'm somehow inconveniencing or bamboozling the court with my case. My naive view is that SCC is there exactly for what we're experiencing: a civil dispute over a relatively small amount of money. Do I have a grossly inaccurate view of the system? I'm asking because I want to be prepared for eventualities. I've never sued anyone before and would LOVE to get of this without havig to. OTOH, I don't have much respect for someone who says they'll do something and then doesn't. Legal or not, it's immoral. I feel like I have moral justification to go to SCC, not just legal justification. The former is far more important in my mind than the latter...

Anyway, interested in your thoughts... If there's some vital piece of information you're looking for, let me know. Maybe what I see as a minor point and not worth putting in is actually a legal lynchpin I don't know about...

 

[djohnson]

Go ahead and file and take your chances. You are twisting everything and not listening to what is being said. You are witness that Judge Judy always yells at to shut up. You have the right to sue and see what happens.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Mitigation, Please look that up!
You took 3 weeks to get an estimate, anything could have happened in 3 weeks.
A reasonable person, yes look that up as well, would have immediately gotten an estimate and if the other person had failed to honor the verbal agreement within 1 week, would have filed with the insurance company. Apparently the scratch is so insignificant that you are only pursuing this out of some need for attention. You have spouted volumns of text without any logical comprehension.

Advice: Get your car detailed and get your wife some flowers, a giant box of Chocolate and a spa day, she deserves them.

 

[CarlJStoneham]

Well FINALLY! If someone had used the explanation at the beginning, all this would have been avoided. I can see how mitigation severely impacts the case since we waited so long for an estimate. Again, would have been nice to have that spelled out early on.

I'm curious if the law would truly consider that to be a reasonable person's actions on the "filing with the insurance company [after 1 week]". Here's why:

1. I've seen literally thousands of cars on the highway with cosmetic damage that has not been fixed. Some of them I've seen several times over several months on my way to work.

2. I can reasonably assume that at least half of them have insurance.

3. Regardless of the reason for the damage, I might reasonably assume that those with insurance did not get the damage fixed because the deductible + premium increase cost as much as the repairs would out of pocket.

4. I would argue that a reasonable person does NOT file with their insurance company for repair of "minor" cosmetic damages (according to the III, only 8 out of every $100 taken in by auto insurance companies went to comprehensive in 2003 (2/3 of the amount that went to lawyer's fees alone) and there's evidence that the number of comprehensive claims (aside from weather) is actually decreasing each year).

The question then becomes what these people would have done if someone had given them further incentive to not claim the damage by offering to pay for it themselves. I thought I was being a good person by not going to his insurance company and raising his premiums and letting him pay out of pocket. Lord knows if that happened to me and the cost to fix the damage out of pocket was less than the cost to my insurance, I'd want an chance to do that. Then again, I know that the vast majority of Americans can no longer be categorized as "nice", so maybe that's where I become "unreasonable". I was trying to be polite like I was raised in my Southern family and assume the person was honest. By the time I realized he likely wasn't, I guess I had waited too long.

As for getting attention, I don't think that's my reason for doing this. Maybe you have more insight into me as a person than I do. I just thought SCC might be an option, so I sought out the "best free advice on the web" and got a response similar to many I've read on here. I now know that "Contact an insurance agent" meant "You have a weak case and will likely be out SCC fees." Of course, just saying that would have been helpful, but like I said, not all people are nice. Nevertheless, I guess I've gotten a sense for the merits of the case.

I'll post a few more questions about technicalities as I prepare this case. I know who's holding a grudge and got their "Senior Member" feelings hurt and who will actually be interested in answering a legal question with advice that's clear and helpful. I'll skip over the former posts and write down what I get from the latter. This has been a fascinating experience, one which makes me wish I had stayed with Psychology. It'd make a GREAT case study.

And djohnson, I wonder if it ever occured to you that "twisting everything" was a sign that the advice might not have been as clear as you think. When my students "twist everything" I've said, I step back and wonder if maybe *I'm* the one who was unclear. To the uninitiated, the law can be a very daunting thing and what comeone well-versed in it thinks is clear is likely just muddy water to someone new. You have your assumptions about me and that's fine, but I do appreciate your advice and apologize if I "twisted" it.

As for Judge Judy, I'm kind of surprised that you all watch her. I thought this forum was about serious law. If I've ever seen a person who didn't really care about serving justice, it's her. Then again, they DO troll for Jerry-Springer-like cases, so I guess that speaks volumes about what kind of person she is at heart (I always wonder about the people who LOOK for people to yell at). Heck, just look at the time slots and channels she's on.

Well, I'll consider this thread closed unless someone has some additional advice. I'll know which names to skim over and which to read.

 

[djohnson]

When I stated twisting, I didn't mean we were unclear, I meant that because you didn't like the answers you kept putting up the same arguments that had already been answered and it was useless to continue trying to help when you obviously had all the answers. I am not familiar with your state, but I will also say that because there isn't a police report to prove an accident it could cause you problems.

 

[ENASNI]

Holy Moly And His Cousin Crimoly

Rmet said:
Advice: Get your car detailed and get your wife some flowers, a giant box of Chocolate and a spa day, she deserves them.

I will be skimmed over... so I just wanted to say, Doc... no kidding she has to live with this blow-hard. This is the best advice you could give him, at least I don't have to read his spewings...Oy.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Rmet said:
Advice: Get your car detailed and get your wife some flowers, a giant box of Chocolate and a spa day, she deserves them.

I will be skimmed over... so I just wanted to say, Doc... no kidding she has to live with this blow-hard. This is the best advice you could give him, at least I don't have to read his spewings...Oy.

LOL, OP totaly forgot that I mentioned mitigation early on. I have given up reading his posts as well and you know I rarely do that.
I will add that insofar as his comment re others having damage and insurance, most would have caused the damage themselves, not caused by another, that is why it isn't fixed. I could use a spa day myself, notice how he ignored that part.

 

[panzertanker]

The point about the time span is odd to me. Here's how I see it. Tell me where I'm not seeing it like the judge might...

1. The fiberglass comes off his truck, hits our Highlander (My wife has confirmed that she remembers us being "about 5-6 car lengths back"). We pull over, he asks that we handle it "off the insurance" and we agree. (Yes, I know this was dumb, but we usualy take people at their word. To date, we're way ahead on trusting people. This guy is proving to be exception (but that's a digression and not something I assume the judge would care about)).

2. He gives us his cards and asks us to call him when we have an estimate.

3. 3 weeks later, we have an estimate and I call several times. After about a week or two, I get him and offer to take it to a bodyshop of his choosing if he feels the dealership is too high (which I assume it is). He says he'll call back the next day with the number of a body shop.

4. 5-6 weeks later, after leaving 12+ messages on his cell-phone (the number on one card), I try several times at work and he's not there (he owns the business, so I assume he comes and goes as he pleases). SCC now starts to look like the only option. Up to this point, I have had no intention of suing since I assumed he was just busy. Perhaps my preference to NOT rush to court makes me look less-than-forthright? If that's so, then that is the saddest commentary on our society yet. Those who don't rush to court are guilty of something? Wow But anyway...

So what I want to know is why the judge would look at this in a negative light (aside from being in a bad mood that day or something similarly capricious). As far as *I* can tell, the only thing I did "wrong" was not call the police and get a report. Everything else, from my POV, has simply been trying to work with him. The damage to the bumper doesn't affect how the car drives or its safety (confirmed at the body shop), so it's not something I need done yesterday. If the guy calls tomorrow and has a shop that'll do it for $200, we'll go to that shop and have them do it. I'd just like my wife's bumper to be fixed. It appears SCC may be the option since he's not returning our calls (she got him on the phone yesterday from a different number (he answered immediately) and he said he'd call right back and never did). I'm getting a sense (from those posting with useful evidence) that I'm somehow inconveniencing or bamboozling the court with my case. My naive view is that SCC is there exactly for what we're experiencing: a civil dispute over a relatively small amount of money. Do I have a grossly inaccurate view of the system? I'm asking because I want to be prepared for eventualities. I've never sued anyone before and would LOVE to get of this without havig to. OTOH, I don't have much respect for someone who says they'll do something and then doesn't. Legal or not, it's immoral. I feel like I have moral justification to go to SCC, not just legal justification. The former is far more important in my mind than the latter...

Anyway, interested in your thoughts... If there's some vital piece of information you're looking for, let me know. Maybe what I see as a minor point and not worth putting in is actually a legal lynchpin I don't know about...

I believe you have Moral justification to go to SCC too, but your issue is being able to PROVE, to the judge's satisfaction, that the defendant is the one who negligently damaged your vehicle.

I hear you state that your wife was exposed to at least SOME of the end of the conversation between you and the defendant where he stated that he wanted to keep it out of insurance (or something to that extent). The obstacle here is PROVING that the defendant stated that.

The issue is not morals, the issue is getting the defendant to state that he IS responsible, or persuading a judge that you are more credible than the defendant.

View it this way:
My wife and I have damage on our car (from whatever reason, this is a hypothetical). We want to have it fixed. We are driving down the road and see a big truck with rocks/fiberglass/bricks/boards (you choose). I look at my wife and say, "Hey honey, here is our chance to get our car fixed".
I write down the tag number, get a good look at the driver and his load, and then file a SCC case against him.

I stand up in front of the judge and state, "he pulled over, he accepted responsibilty, he gave me his phone number, he is at fault (insert all of YOUR 'evidence' here) and my wife heard him state he was at fault.

He (the defendant, who has NO idea who in the world I am, tells the judge, "I haven't a clue what he is talking about, he has no PROOF that it was me and no statements in writing or other witnesses, besides his WIFE (wink wink nod nod), to prove that I caused that damage".

The judge now has a conundrum...

Who is telling the truth?
Who has verborrhea ?

Do you NOW understand what everyone is trying to make you see? Scams like the one I described are pulled all the time. What makes you think that you are any more credible than they are? The judge will have to decide.

So, go for it. File a SCC case. Good luck, but be prepared for a let down....

 

[Veronica1228]

LOL, OP totaly forgot that I mentioned mitigation early on. I have given up reading his posts as well and you know I rarely do that.
I will add that insofar as his comment re others having damage and insurance, most would have caused the damage themselves, not caused by another, that is why it isn't fixed. I could use a spa day myself, notice how he ignored that part.

I tried reading all of the OP posts too, but life is too short to spend so much time on this one pointless thread. Do you think Carl is being paid per word to post on this forum?

 

[seniorjudge]

I tried reading all of the OP posts too, but life is too short to spend so much time on this one pointless thread. Do you think Carl is being paid per word to post on this forum?

Mother Teresa was being interviewed by a newspaper.

When asked what she thought of abstinence for women religious, she said, "It's pointless."