ADA con artists

[madoka]

Also as a business owner, you should probably be up to date with all laws/compliance/regulations and make sure they are in shape. Either hire someone to make sure or inform yourself.

This is an impossible task. Clint Eastwood pointed out that even the courthouse where his case was tried was not handicapped accessible and thus in violation of the ADA.

Hell, I bet money that Anandtech is in violation of the ADA.

Web sites which are perfectly accessible to fully-abled people may be impossible for people with disabilities to access. For example, that beautiful new law firm site that your high-priced designer just created may be impossible for a person using screen reading technology to navigate; particularly if they are blind/low vision or have a specific learning disability. Those “frames” or neat drop-down Java menus on your site may be impossible to use via voice command software. Your fancy “streaming audio” online CLE courses or video conferencing events may be impossible for a deaf person to hear. And so on.

 

[Darwin333]

The system needs to be reformed but not this way. The business with one small violation like a too low sign is not the one being sued under the present system. These people look for old businesses run out of old structures. There are tons of regs so almost any old business is going to have several violations, especially if it is a small business where the cost of correction is a lot of money to the owner. And proof of one violation means the plaintiff can recover all attorneys fees, which is a lot more than the value of the case as compensatory damages for the plaintiff.

What they need to do is say the business is given written notice of the violations, either by way of lawsuit or letter, the owner has say 120 days to cure the violations. If cured, the plaintiff cannot recover attorneys fees, only whatever damages they suffered. This may not be all that much for entering the establishment once and claiming to be humiliated, especially after the jury is told that this is the 50th time this plaintiff has claimed he wet himself not being able to get into a restaurant bathroom.

The purpose of the lawsuits should be to encourage compliance, not to enrich greedy lawyers and unscrupulous plaintiffs.

I'd wager that less than 1% of these lawsuits ever see a jury. That could potentially solve the problem though because in order to sue the harmed party would have to come out of pocket to pay the lawyers or the lawyers think they will get a large enough settlement for the client as to be worth their time.

 

[interchange]

I don't know about inspections for ADA compliance, but I'd be surprised if they didn't exist. If true, should not there be responsibility on our inspection system to identify problems and to fine for non-compliance. If there is gross enough violation that someone suffers significant damages, then absolutely they should have the right to sue. Short of that, shouldn't they just report for fines on failure to comply? Needs to be some criminal or civil mechanism for failure to correct deficiencies in reasonable time frame as well.

I imagine, though, that there are a lot of inspectors who are paid bribes to let things slide. Dangerous game, but I don't think that randomly bankrupting businesses in frivolous lawsuits works. Holding inspectors accountable for patterns of failure to notice or fine for violations would help.

 

[interchange]

or the lawyers think they will get a large enough settlement for the client as to be worth their time.

What if the client is the lawyer or has a financial relationship with the lawyer? Since the loser pays the legal fees, it's a win-win. Also, even without that relationship, lawyers who think they can win have incentive to take a case regardless of the magnitude of their client's potential reward. In fact, they have incentive to spend as much money as possible in order to prove their case, even knowing that an action won't help in that regard, just so long as a judge doesn't find the expense undoubtedly unjustified.

 

[Ns1]

there are many dudes like that guy

 

[woolfe9998]

I'd wager that less than 1% of these lawsuits ever see a jury. That could potentially solve the problem though because in order to sue the harmed party would have to come out of pocket to pay the lawyers or the lawyers think they will get a large enough settlement for the client as to be worth their time.

No, that is the problem. The plaintiff needs only to establish a single code violation and can then get an award of attorney's fees. These code violations are generally pretty cut and dry, easy to prove. The plaintiff's claimed personal damages are really beside the point. A jury could award the plaintiff nominal damages of $1 but the attorney will get paid based on whatever over-inflated bill they submit at the end of trial. The only way the lawyer doesn't get his fee is if the defendant has no insurance and is insolvent.

And no, the plaintiffs do not pay the lawyer in these types of cases. The lawyer always gets paid by the defendant. The thing to understand about this is every case is driven by the lawyer. The lawyer has a network of handicapped "plaintiffs" and they coordinate the whole thing. The lawyer likely told the plaintiff to frequent the establishment in question. Typically the case will settle and the plaintiff will get like $5K, while the lawyer may get $100K, without even doing much work. They'll use the same plaintiffs dozens of times, so its fine for the plaintiff to get another $5K every so often for doing literally nothing but go to eat at a restaurant.

 

[thesmokingman]

No, that is the problem. The plaintiff needs only to establish a single code violation and can then get an award of attorney's fees. These code violations are generally pretty cut and dry, easy to prove. The plaintiff's claimed personal damages are really beside the point. A jury could award the plaintiff nominal damages of $1 but the attorney will get paid based on whatever over-inflated bill they submit at the end of trial. The only way the lawyer doesn't get his fee is if the defendant has no insurance and is insolvent.

And no, the plaintiffs do not pay the lawyer in these types of cases. The lawyer always gets paid by the defendant. The thing to understand about this is every case is driven by the lawyer. The lawyer has a network of handicapped "plaintiffs" and they coordinate the whole thing. The lawyer likely told the plaintiff to frequent the establishment in question. Typically the case will settle and the plaintiff will get like $5K, while the lawyer may get $100K, without even doing much work. They'll use the same plaintiffs dozens of times, so its fine for the plaintiff to get another $5K every so often for doing literally nothing but go to eat at a restaurant.

Damn dude, time to get a disability on?

 

[Slew Foot]

Lawyers are assholes. Lawyers that get promoted turn into politicans. Now you know why the country is fucked.

 

[Ns1]

No, that is the problem. The plaintiff needs only to establish a single code violation and can then get an award of attorney's fees. These code violations are generally pretty cut and dry, easy to prove. The plaintiff's claimed personal damages are really beside the point. A jury could award the plaintiff nominal damages of $1 but the attorney will get paid based on whatever over-inflated bill they submit at the end of trial. The only way the lawyer doesn't get his fee is if the defendant has no insurance and is insolvent.

And no, the plaintiffs do not pay the lawyer in these types of cases. The lawyer always gets paid by the defendant. The thing to understand about this is every case is driven by the lawyer. The lawyer has a network of handicapped "plaintiffs" and they coordinate the whole thing. The lawyer likely told the plaintiff to frequent the establishment in question. Typically the case will settle and the plaintiff will get like $5K, while the lawyer may get $100K, without even doing much work. They'll use the same plaintiffs dozens of times, so its fine for the plaintiff to get another $5K every so often for doing literally nothing but go to eat at a restaurant.

i hate people

 

[woolfe9998]

Lawyers are assholes. Lawyers that get promoted turn into politicans. Now you know why the country is fucked.

You can blame lawyers if you want. Certainly some are slimy. The plaintiff lawyers in this field are particularly so. However, the real problem here is how the law works. Whenever a law creates a financially exploitable situation, it is axiomatic that there will be people who will take advantage. People are greedy. It just happens to be lawyers who are in a position to exploit this. I suspect that if you offered an accountant, an engineer or a truck driver the opportunity to make $100,000 for doing practically nothing, many would jump on it.

BTW, since I forgot to mention this, one of the plaintiff's lawyers in one of the ADA cases I had went on to sue Clint Eastwood over alleged code violations in his resort in Carmel. But Eastwood won, sort of.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Eastwood-Wins-Suit-Over-ADA-But-jury-says-2736250.php

So the jury awarded no damages to the plaintiff. However, just like I said,

For these shortcomings, the zum Brunnens' attorneys reportedly demanded a $577,000 settlement from Mission Ranch. Even though the jury decided that the zum Brunnens do not deserve damages from Eastwood, the presence of architectural violations at the resort -- a point that has been conceded -- could require the payment of well over $577,000 in attorney fees.

Quite the racket, eh?

 

[Brian Stirling]

This is why business move to China.

Also as a business owner, you should probably be up to date with all laws/compliance/regulations and make sure they are in shape. Either hire someone to make sure or inform yourself.

In the great scheme of things this is a nit like buying toilet paper -- more so for those that get hit, but on average it's not a huge deal. Business are moving to China for much bigger reasons: pay levels of 10% or less, expenditures for workplace safety controls at 5% or less, and expenditures for environmental controls a 5% or less.


Brian

 

[Brian Stirling]

Lawyers are assholes. Lawyers that get promoted turn into politicans. Now you know why the country is fucked.

Shakespeare was right!


Brian

 

[BurnItDwn]

There should be people called 'Inspectors' who go to businesses and check to make sure the place is up to code. The inspection should help to insulate the business operator against harmful lawsuits.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Sounds like it's a deficiency in the state law that doesn't allow a business to have a grace period to fix deficiencies and allows for civil penalties instead of fines for minor offenses. You can't really blame the lawyer for taking advantage of those however even if it is a pretty scummy "line of business" to be in. When there's an environmental niche something will arise to fill it, whether it's a vulture or fly on sh!t in nature or an "ambulance chaser" lawyer in human society.

I don't need a law to tell me not to be a despicable pig. This dude is scum and I doubt he gives two shakes about any law.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't need a law to tell me not to be a despicable pig. This dude is scum and I doubt he gives two shakes about any law.

One can think the lawyer is a pig and still believe the law needs to be changed. It isn't either/or.