August 12th 2024
On this episode of the Law Frog, David and Ross dive into a case about a Burger Kind trip gone wrong for a family, a lawsuit involving Disney, and a brother stealing his sister’s car.
Ross: First, let’s talk about the new laws that went into effect. One is the extension or expansion of the lemon law. Does this apply to just new cars or used cars too?
David: It’s largely designed to provide a tool to enforce the warranty mechanism that attaches to these vehicles. So, you can have a new car and then if you want to transfer it while it’s still within the warranty period, a lot of those same protections should still apply. Lemon law is one of those areas where we use that word a lot. You hear a lot of people talk about it because they buy a used car off of some side lot, and it falls apart as soon as they drive away. Those vehicles are usually sold well after the manufacturer’s warranty is expired and are sold as is. But, when you buy a new car or purchase a car that is still covered by the manufacturer’s warranty, these lemon laws are designed to make sure that the manufacturers are held accountable for defects in the manufacturing process. It is complicated and there are attorneys who specialize in lemon law.
Ross: A mom bought a Burker King kids’ meal for her child. She asked for it to have no ketchup because she knows they don’t like ketchup. Her kid got the burger, and her kid is saying that there is ketchup all over the bag and the burger. Turns out it was not ketchup and was blood. They came back and said that a worker had cut himself badly in the back and blood had gotten everywhere, they thought they had gotten it all but clearly a lot had gotten on the customer’s kid’s meal. The story doesn’t say she is going to sue, but she’s going to sue right?
David: This is just horrible, and I just hope that it is just a cringe story and that everybody is healthy and okay. This little girl has now got to get tested routinely for bloodborne illnesses or diseases. There are a few different angles to a case like this. Number one, is she is not sick, which is hopefully the case, but there is still an emotional distress component to this whole experience. This is one of those things where you’ve got a corporation that wants to try to get out in front of this the right way. At first, the managers just offered a refund and now they’re offering to pay for any of the medical expenses that they have from this, but the damages go beyond that. So, would I take the case? Yes, absolutely, and a lot of it has to do with just trying to hold them accountable and making sure that they’ve got the right procedures and training in place so that this doesn’t happen again. There are different strategies that different lawyers would employ, but the number one thing is to make sure that this girl is okay.
Ross: The next story is about a guy who brought his family to Disneyland, they ate at a restaurant and the wife expressed that she had allergies. They ended up serving her something she was allergic to, and she passed away.
David: The husband filed a wrongful death lawsuit, and Disney made an argument that it actually doesn’t belong in court and that they have to arbitrate this in private arbitration, not in front of a jury. This is because years ago, the husband signed up for a trial service of the Disney+ streaming TV service three years ago and cancelled it after a month. When he did that, somewhere in the fine print is that you agree to arbitrate any claims you might have against the Disney company. Presumably when you sign something like that you’re thinking this is for something having to do with my Disney+ streaming service.
Ross: If this hadn’t leaked out to the public, would Disney continue that angle?
David: I think they 100% would continue until a judge clarified everything.
Ross: A caller’s neighbor’s tree fell on their shed causing electrical lines to arc and burn out their furnace. Insurance refuses to pay for the furnace, saying it is old and normal wear and tear. How do they pursue corrections from here?
David: There is a chain of events here, we have to be able to establish that the furnace malfunctioned because of the electrical arc, because of the tree falling. If that can be proved, the insurance theoretically would be responsible for the damage. The question then becomes what’s the value of the furnace and has the value depreciated from wear and tear? You would also want to take into consideration the deductible on the insurance policy. You could also hire a public adjuster to help determine whether or not the furnace could be repaired or would need to be fully replaced. File the appropriate paperwork with the insurance company and be sure to itemize all of the things about that furnace that was working, to establish that it was working.
Ross: Elizabeth was involved in a car accident where a vehicle turned left in front of her vehicle. The light for through traffic was green, but the out-of-state driver turning the vehicle claims the light was red since the turning lane opposite of them was stopped. A police report was filed the next morning and said there were no injuries at the scene. The registration that the other driver provided at the scene was expired and they had no proof of insurance. Does she have a case against the rental company or the vehicle’s driver?
David: Let’s assume the facts prove that the out-of-state driver was responsible and is the one who caused this crash. In that case you are dealing with an insurance issue, so who’s going to write the check for the damages to the car?
Ross: We did try to call Elizabeth to confirm whether or not the out-of-state driver was in a rental vehicle. But that is crazy that the rental company would issue a vehicle that has an expired registration, that can’t be right.
David: That’s the thing, that car should be registered. However, there could have been a clerical issue where they failed to put the right registration in the car, or something like that. Elizabeth’s primary thing that she needs to do is to file a claim with her own insurance company. A lot of people don’t like to do that because then they have to pay the deductible. The good thing about doing that, though, is now you have somebody trying to help you get reimbursed the money back for the deductible and the damages, from the person who caused the crash. It also helps save you the aggravation of trying to track down that person’s insurance company and dealing with them directly. It’s better to deal with your own insurance company most of the time.
Ross: Kassia’s brother stole her dad’s car. Her dad signed the title over to her before he retired and then he moved to a different country. What can she do?
David: My first questions are what does she mean by her brother stole it? When did he steal it? And what exactly did he do? I ask this because a lot of this could do with how things were interpreted with who was actually going to get the car. Did the brother drive away with the car thinking that the dad was leaving him the car and the dad had made a side deal with the daughter?
Ross: Let’s assume it’s that the brother is upset because the dad gave the car to his sister and he thinks it should be his so he drove off with it one day. But she has a valid title to the car that was signed over to her by the dad.
David: If we are really at that level where she has the legal title to the car and he came in the garage and drove away with it one day, that is motor vehicle theft. She would want to go to the police department to file a report. What I think it could be is the brother had access to the car, maybe a set of his own keys, and even though the dad gave the car to Kassia, the brother decided to take possession of it anyways. She knows where he lives, but maybe he is refusing to give the car back to her and she is hoping for someone to get in the middle of her relationship with her brother to help get the car back. There are no easy ways to do that without bringing the law in.
