If a person were to lose his income as a result of another's negligence and their income supports their bills to handle a chronic condition... can some one collect for damages to their health as a result?
|
If a person were to lose his income as a result of another's negligence and their income supports their bills to handle a chronic condition... can some one collect for damages to their health as a result?
Much too general. Please state the specifics, and what country this is in.
Reading, PA, USA: A friend suffers from PAD (peripheral artery disease), a chronic condition where if left untreated one could lose their leg, he is my business partner and our business was forced into constructive eviction since the commercial space was not up to local fire and safety code (more specifically no sprinkling systems, fire construction, nor fire suppression systems). My business partner is unable to sustain his income in order to treat his chronic condition as a direct result of the landlords negligence to act despite inspecting authority's citation. Can he collect for damages as a result of this injury?
Hello A:Quote:
Originally Posted by Autarkic
Sure.
But, it's not as simple as that... If you want a BETTER answer, tell me what happened.
excon
Hello A:Quote:
Originally Posted by Autarkic
I missed your post above...
No, he can't collect... You SAY your partner is broke as a direct result of the landlords negligence... I SAY it is not. I think a court would agree.
Now, the BUSINESS might be able to sue the landlord for breach of contract. But, you'll have to tell me more about the "constructive eviction". I don't know if vacating the premises because there were NO fire suppressant features would be considered a "constructive eviction". But, maybe... Tell me more.
excon
excon
First I would like to thank you for your interest in all the matters I have posted. I relation to the present question, I am the same individual who posted the question on this site (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/real-estate-law/does-business-have-standing-sue-landlord-code-violations-519441.html). In accordance with tort litigation and certain civil standing rules... if a person commits an act which injures another party via strict negligence, they are entitled to all remedies available to them when pursuing damages. Since the building was not up to code and we ran a café (which catered to the public), we had a public duty to protect the health and safety of our patrons, which validates 'Constructive Eviction' (definition can be noted at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_eviction). The only hazy aspect of this matter is tying in his preceding condition into his present financial degradation as a result of the landlords inaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autarkic
Hello again, A:Quote:
Originally Posted by Autarkic
So YOU say. Which brings me to your first post above...
So far, you have given us YOUR conclusions about the law and asked us to comment. We have, and asked you to do a few things too, like consult a lawyer.. You didn't respond...
You and I both want the flow of information to continue. But, it's a two way street.
I can't discuss the law if I don't know the facts. I want to determine what the facts mean on my own. I don't want you to do that for me. Toward that end, I want to know about your business structure (partnership - corporation), your PARTNERSHIP agreement, your LEASE, the problem with the fire stuff, what you DID about it, what the landlord DID or didn't do about it, WHY you paid your rent into escrow, WHY the landlord sued your partner and NOT you, WHAT the status of that case is (since you said it was IN litigation), and matters like that.
excon
I apologize or the frustration... I was attempting to alleviate any unnecessary reading for the commentators. I shall give you a concise explanation of the material facts as they occurred.
My partner opened a sole-proprietorship café in September 2009 in a seven story building and signed a commercial lease agreement for the basement level space with the landlord. He passed all inspections (health and safety).
The Fire and Panic Act of 2009, was passed rendering the building 'out of code' since there were no fire suppression systems (sprinkling), standing pipe, nor fire escapes on any of the seven story floors. Prior to the passing of this act the building fell under what was deemed a Grandfather Clause which meant that any building older than a certain age (like 80+ years) was not required to make upgrades under the previous code regulations due to the amount of costs it would take for the owner to do so.
An inspection was conducted in March, 2010 applying these new local code standards and the landlord was named to be the responsible party for the various 'building issues' (meaning the café was up to code but the surrounding floors were not) and he was given 60 days to correct these violations. The inspecting authority noticed my partner that if the building was not brought up to code that he would be locked out of his business and he would not be able to return until the repairs were made. This required approx. $789,900... an amount the landlord did/does not have. Therefore, the repairs would not be made by the deadline and our business would have failed as a result.
About the end of April, 2010, my partner placed May, 2010 rent into escrow (at the suggestion of his then attorney) predicated upon the repairs being made. Notice was sent to the landlord. Two days later, the landlord sued for failure to pay rent. A hearing was held and my partner's attorney never showed (at this hearing the inspecting authority testified that the building was not up to code and it was due to the landlord mind you). Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for $2015. I was added a as a partner June, 2010 so that I may have an interest in the business in order to pursue legal recourse on behalf of the café.
An appeal was filed but a constructive eviction was enacted by us since the building was not up to code and we could not consciously operate in a fire hazard and place our patrons in harms way. We vacated the premises with our property. The landlord had plans of locking us out and keeping all our equipment (as reliable source explained). This would have been the third time he had done this if we had not left (two previous business owners were evicted and locked out the next day unable to take their property-this is his scam).
Once he saw he could not lock us out any longer and keep our equipment, he filed another claim amounting to $53,789.18 against my partner (he originally came after him in his private capacity rather than the corporate in addition to the fact that I was not partner at the time of original suit) alleging damages and stolen property.
As it stands, a 'battle of the forms' has been taking place and only one hearing. We filed a counter-claim amounting to a sum of $343,756.78 for the filing of a false claim, damages to the business and enterprise, and other various accounting losses. The case has yet to be tried.
The only question is whether my partner may collect personal injury damages due to the loss of wages being a direct result of the landlord's strict liability for negligence? If it were not for the landlord's inaction to correct the building issues cited, my partner and I would still be in business and ,by extension, my business partner would be able to afford the necessary operation to save his leg.
Hello again, A:Quote:
Originally Posted by Autarkic
Thank you. I understand a lot better... I STILL have questions.. You said it was sole proprietorship, then you joined as a partner, then it was a corporation... HOW that happened is of interest to me, but...
So, I'll answer the question you asked.
Knowing the story hasn't caused me to change my mind. This is a breach of contract law suit. One can't collect personal injury damages in those lawsuits. He'd have to file yet another lawsuit, which he'd lose in my opinion. That's because this is NOT a personal injury case, and you can't change it into one just because you want to.
It's like one of your employees suing YOU for personal injury because they no longer have a job as a DIRECT result of your failure in business. Clearly, you were negligent in the operation of your business, or you would STILL be in business.. Ergo, YOUR negligence caused them to be broke, and they cannot now afford a life saving operation they need, and they want YOU to pay for it.
excon
excon,
Thank you for your input on these matters, it both assists me in evaluating the position of my logic as well as helps to challenge my greater understanding of these issues. They are openly welcome.
I guess it merely matter on the definitions in which one uses "Personal Injury" and "Negligent Act as a contribution to create strict liability". When one implies the Chain of Causation Rule to these standards the view gets a bit smeared at best if whether one is treading on Tort or Civil grounds for liability. Simply to put it... it all boils down to what you can convince the jury of being true.
Hello again, A:Quote:
Originally Posted by Autarkic
I don't think that is so. You have to convince a JUDGE first. Since this ISN'T a personal injury case, you won't be allowed to present evidence that it IS.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:17 PM. |