Ask Joe - November 9th
Wednesday, November 9th
Wednesday, November 9th
The Novermber 9th edition of Ask Joe - a listener writes in with questions.
You're Joseph Staley from Stanley law offices for ask Joseph line WC MF dot com RA so we had a lot of great questions commend this week for you Joseph. On the first we have here on the road and they said I recently had my home broken into. And the thief took my beer fridge count awful like generator and all the beer and bowl. On the police have found the perpetrators but he's a minor so who was actually responsible for the restitution. Well that's that's the question is. Yet the child under sixteen there's a statute and a law that. Makes the parent responsible I believe for up to 3000 dollars or years you get sued apparent. Or were. That he did fractions of a minor up at a spot that probably would cover. Here damages. And it also sort of minor get a judgment the jets. Yeah it was a good parents. You know I thought I would take that small claims court. And that it it was a pretty obscure provision of the law sort of maybe you ought to check. Took would you go to do that good identified to a court that apparently can be responsibly because generally parents are not responsible for their kids. Malfeasance in that situation. Share it sounds like possibly confusing case there. Yeah a share on our next listener wrote in here they said my sister was just injured in the parking lot of a local shopping center. Had been tripped on an extension cord that was Ron from the scanner CU and inflatable in the parking lot. On the fall injured her head and has led to multiple doctors' visits she may actually need surgery. The property owner said it's the responsibility of the store on you know distorted so we seen. The property to cover the issues than the Storch is putting the figure at the property owner. Who was actually responsible and who should she pursue legal action against. Well it. Who's responsible. Entity that setup it. Display and it could be more of that water to be historic day hired somebody to set up to display. A company that tape hired and restore themselves because. Prayed sponsored the event and a she knew or should have known the dangers condition. I'd I'd out the actual Alder wood. Had much to do with it and they're probably were not noticed the dangerous conditions so they probably are responsible. So it's. It's the forward. Uncertainty of that and probably the companies who actually because that's about it really it is posted picked up turn off. So really you multiple people here yet and that's something change really talk to a lawyer because. As it starts saying we're not responsible. Remains were mapped to the paper if you're injured. Right right. Don't think so what's your time you give a question for Joseph on do you like an answer on ask Joseph and Debbie cnet.com dissenter and we'll get to it hopefully.