[berrysweetncgurl]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? North Carolina

I was at a apartment complex swimming pool in Winston Salem North Carolina on June 5, 2010.

Their "911" emergency phone was located in a metal box. My toddler was playing close to the box and the corner of the box was at "head" level for my toddler.

I got out of the pool and went to move my son away from the box, when I did the corner of the metal box cut my hand wide open. The cut is on the top of my left hand and required stitches, it is currently a "keloid" scar (raised up, puffy, red)

My insurance covered $500.00 of the medical bill leaving a remaining of $693 to be paid to the hospital.

The management company representing the apartment complex is trying to settle with me for my hospital bills only. They sent me a paper stating if they take care of the remaining hospital bill of $693, this release them from any liability.

The apartment realizes they were negligent, as they have since moved the metal box up onto a fence and sawed the edges down

Do I have a case to pursue further?
The remaining medical bills are also starting to hit my credit. :-(

[ballengerb1]

I think you can pursue this further but counsulting an attorney will be becessary. Don't sign anything until the attporney can advise you. Supplying a picture of the box and how sharp edges are exposed will help.

[berrysweetncgurl]

The day after my accident the apartment complex relocated the box and sawed the edges down, so pictures are not available.

[ballengerb1]

Take a picture of what they have now to show they immediately changed it. These changes can be argued that they realized teir liability and made alterations to avoid further injury.

[AK lawyer]

Take a picture of what they have now to show they immediately changed it. These changes can be argued that they realized teir liability and made alterations to avoid further injury.

In some places I guess. The rules of evidence I am most familiar with make such evidence of subsequent repair inadmissable, as to allow it would discourage mediation of dangerous conditions.

[excon]

Do I have a case to pursue further?

Hello berry:

You betcha. I'd file a small claims for the maximum in your jurisdiction. Whatever amount is over and above your out of pocket expenses you would call "pain and suffering". Maybe they'll settle a little faster afterwards, or maybe not. No matter. I think a judge would be favorable toward your case.

excon

[smoothy]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Do I have a case to pursue further?
The remaining medical bills are also starting to hit my credit. :-(

You are obligated to pay that medical bill first... you may or may not recover something at a later date, but anything negative on your credit report would be your own fault for failing to pay it in a timely manner.

Now if you have a case or not?. you can sue for almost anything... actually winning is a whole different thing. You would have to show the burden of proof as you would be making the claim. Without photos at the time BEFORE repairs were made... its going to be a hard argument to win.

[J_9]

I'm wondering if this could be a case of "open and obvious." Therefore, she would win nothing.

[excon]

Hello smoothy and J:

She doesn't need pictures to prove it was moved, unless they're going to LIE. To counter that possibility, she should bring witnesses. If the box was "open and obvious" they wouldn't have moved it. Moving it PROVES they knew it was hazardous. It's kind of like a confession.

excon

[Fr_Chuck]

Part of the issue, was if this was really a issue, how long was it there, had anyone else got hurt, was the person who got hurt partially to blame. I mean I could cut myself on a dozen shelves at the local store if I was not careful.
I am just showing what the pools attorney could be saying and that they merely offered to settle since it was cheaper than court.

Next of course the OP needs to pay the balance out of their own pocket till they settle with someone. Being late or on credit is no one else's fault.

Also besides doctor bills, what other loses are there, getting hurt is not a blank check to making money it is to cover your actual costs of the injury, so besides the doctor bills, what costs are you out

[excon]

so besides the doctor bills, what costs are you out

Hello Padre:

Pain and suffering IS compensable.. I'm not saying it's worth THOUSANDS. But, it's worth something.

excon

[smoothy]

Hello smoothy and J:

She doesn't need pictures to prove it was moved, unless they're gonna LIE. To counter that possibility, she should bring witnesses. If the box was "open and obvious" they wouldn't have moved it. Moving it PROVES they knew it was hazardous. It's kinda like a confession.

excon

Burden of proof...

She 'might" win with circumstantial evidence... Photos would speak volumes however, but there are none... unless they had a work order to prove it was actually moved and when... its pure hear/say (if they were smart they didn't leave a paper trail, and THAT happens every day). After all, the defendant doesn't have to prove they were innocent... the accuser does have to prove negligence on the part of the property owner/management..

[excon]

Burden of proof.....

She 'might" win with circumstantial evidence....Photos would speak volumes....unless they had a work order to prove it was actually moved and when...its pure hear/say.

Hello again, smoothy:

Photos WOULD be great, but most people don't have PRE injury photos. Eyewitness testimony, however, isn't "hear say" at all. It's solid admissible EVIDENCE. Hear say is trying to submit stuff that somebody ELSE said.

excon

[smoothy]

Hello again, smoothy:

Photos WOULD be great, but most people don't have PRE injury photos. Eyewitness testimony, however, isn't "hear say" at all. It's solid admissible EVIDENCE. Hear say is trying to submit stuff that somebody ELSE said.

excon

"Witnesses" can't be proven to have been there at the time or have actually seen the accident... also.. if they saw an unsafe situation did any of them report it earlier? Its clearly NOT a recent safety issue since its been there for some time.

The box wasn't "moved" that day... there was ample time to have taken pictures after the injury. After all, all the have to say was the box had been moved at some earlier date... and then its up to her to prove otherwise. The Defendant is presumed innocent after all.

Hey, I'll agree anything is possible. But unless she walks into court with a LOT of evidence... leading her to believe she doesn't have to prove much is setting her up for a huge dissappointment. After all I'm willing to bet the people she is thinking about sueing have at least one lawyer on retainer and they know more than a passing amount about CYA.

You are being argumentative... just for the sake of being argumentative here. And its NOT helping the OP.

[excon]

After all, all the have to say was the box had been moved at some earlier date... and then its up to her to prove otherwise. The Defendant is presumed innocent after all. You are being argumentative... just for the sake of being argumentative here. And its NOT helping the OP.

The apartment realizes they were negligent, as they have since moved the metal box up onto a fence and sawed the edges down

Hello again, smoothy:

No, I'm giving CORRECT legal advice, and you AREN'T.

The box WAS moved. She has NO proof of that other than witness's who know the box was moved and WHEN. Finding people who KNOW that, and are willing to tell the TRUTH about it in court should NOT be difficult. The FACT that the box WAS moved POINTS to THEIR liability, and she can PROVE it was moved WITHOUT pictures by her eyewitness's. After that, it's up to the apartment building to explain WHY they moved it, if they can. If they can't, she wins, hands down. Period, end of story.

If I were you, I'd stick to the sex threads.

Excon

[smoothy]

Hello again, smoothy:

No, I'm giving CORRECT legal advice, and you AREN'T.

The box WAS moved. She has NO proof of that other than witness's who know the box was moved and WHEN. Finding people who KNOW that, and are willing to tell the TRUTH about it in court should NOT be difficult. The FACT that the box WAS moved POINTS to THEIR liability, and she can PROVE it was moved WITHOUT pictures by her eyewitness's. After that, it's up to the apartment building to explain WHY they moved it, if they can. If they can't, she wins, hands down. Period, end of story.

If I were you, I'd stick to the sex threads.

excon

Right... hen did you pass your BAR exam... and in what state? The resyt of the country the accused is assumed innocent, and the accuser bears the responsibility of proof.

THere are NO photos proving its been moved... if the management office has half a brain they would have backdated papers documenting its move... IF there kept any at all.

Maybe YOU should stick to threads you know something about... and its not here obviously.

You can't file a lawsuit.. with little proof of safety hazzard that can't be documented... and worse... expect the defendant to prove innocence of wrongdoing... which flies contrary to the legal expectation of presumed innocence. But then... you don't understand that basic premise of American Law.

She can follow your advice... and lose the case... and get kicked out when her lease expires or in a months notice if she's month to month. Because she can't prove the condition existed as she said... and if you knew anything... its what you can prove that makes or breaks a court case.

Nobody said she never cut herself... what was said is she can't prove the conditions that led it it existed as she claims (no photos of it)... and to win she HAS to do that, not supposed witnesses that can't prove they witnessed anything or were at the pool that day. No evidence no case.

[excon]

You can't file a lawsuit..with little proof of safety hazzard that can't be documented....and worse...expect the defendent to prove innocence of wrongdoing....which flies contrary to the legal expectation of presumed innocence. But then....you don't understand that basic premise of American Law.

Hello again, smoothy:

I'm going to give this one more shot. You are missing stuff, and I'm not going to be able to teach you civil law in a couple of posts.. Suffice to say, in our civil court system, the plaintiff has to prove her case with a preponderance of evidence. The plaintiff goes first. IF she has eyewitness testimony proving her allegations, then it's up the defendant to disprove them.

I know you don't like it. I don't care. That's the law. Suck it up. STOP the personal attacks too.

excon

[cdad]

I have to jump in and say this. In criminal cases the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Its not that way in a civil case. The defendant is asked why it should not be. It has nothing to do with innocence nor guilt.

There is confusion going on here.

[excon]

It has nothing to do with innocence nor guilt.

There is confusion going on here.

Hello dad:

Boy, oh boy, I HATE to have to argue smoothy's side, but I'm going to. You're right the terms innocence or guilt have no place in civil law. The correct term would liable.

But, everything else is correct. The defendant in a law suit, as well as one in a criminal complaint, MUST be proven guilty/liable BEFORE he has to utter a word. The ONLY difference is the weight of the evidence... In criminal cases, the weight must be BEYOND a reasonable doubt. In civil cases it has to be no more weighty than 51-49.

But, in both instances, IF the plaintiff/prosecutor doesn't PROVE his case, and he goes first, the defendant should be granted a summary judgment or a directed verdict in criminal matters. If there IS proof, though, the defendant has to answer or risk being found liable/guilty.

There IS confusion going here though. It's in sorting out what the case is about, and how it's prosecuted. Thanks anyway, dad.

excon

[cdad]

Hello dad:

Boy, oh boy, I HATE to have to argue smoothy's side, but I'm gonna. You're right the terms innocence or guilt have no place in civil law. The correct term would liable.

But, everything else is correct. The defendant in a law suit, as well as one in a criminal complaint, MUST be proven guilty/liable BEFORE he has to utter a word. The ONLY difference is the weight of the evidence... In criminal cases, the weight must be BEYOND a reasonable doubt. In civil cases it has to be no more weighty than 51-49.

But, in both instances, IF the plaintiff/prosecutor doesn't PROVE his case, and he goes first, the defendant should be granted a summary judgment/directed verdict. If there IS proof, though, the defendant has to answer or risk being found liable or guilty in a criminal case.

There IS confusion going here though. It's in sorting out what the case is about, and how it's prosecuted. Thanks anyway, dad.

excon

The best definition is by example.


Remember OJ?




Lol