This nice headline was coined by the New York Post and Mr. Wonderful from Shark Tank. Basically, a lot of very large retailers have learned the hard lesson that not everyone thinks like you do.
This is a hard concept to get across to people. If you were a republican legislator in Indiana and you think that everyone in your state will support your anti-abortion views when you took away their right to choose, you were in for a bit of a shock. Same for Bud Light’s comical self-own. Sales are down 25%? Because not everyone thinks like their marketing team.
Not everyone thinks like you do or read the room is a notion that lawyers have to convey to clients all the time. People think that everyone lives like they do because often people similar to themselves are who they spend time with. Here is an example, a client’s story began that she was coming back from her house in Stone Harbor, down the shore and was in a bad car accident. This was a house that she owned, that was easily googled, and well over a million dollars. After the deposition, the defense lawyer’s memory of the case consisted of “beach house, Stone Harbor.” The client did not think that her case was worth less because of her apparent wealth. The client was used to getting her way on most things involving money and negotiation, but it took a lot of work for the client to accept that jurors were going to be less willing to award her substantial money if she plainly did not need the money. Eventually, a mediator settled the case with both sides, but it took the mediator a bit of work to explain that the beach house was coming into evidence.
Continue Reading ››
Steven Schwartz, Esq. Is In Trouble And He Blames CHAT GPT
Posted on May 31, 2023 in Case Matters
Why must it always be the Personal Injury Lawyers making headlines? In another new low, in Federal Court no less, it emerged that New York Attorney Steven A Schwartz, used ChatGPT to look for similar previous cases in a personal injury suit against Avianca, Inc. Airlines. See the attached Affidavit from that case. It appears that none of the cases cited by Chat GPT were actual cases. Rather, they were just plain old made up.
For my non-lawyer readers, this falls into the category of bad or ethical violation. How this will turn out for Mr. Schwartz remains to be seen. He does state that he has been an attorney for 30 years without a blemish on his record, so perhaps he will catch a break here. Nevertheless, lying to the Court or submitting plainly deceptive pleadings in Federal Court is like smuggling hashish into Burma or other locales where the penalty may be rather harsh. Doing so in State Court is similarly frowned upon, but may not bring the same level of outrage from the bench.
Continue Reading ››
Here Is A Conundrum For You
Posted on May 31, 2023 in Case Matters
Every state requires a Certificate of Merit for a medical malpractice case. The Certificate establishes that you had the records reviewed by a qualified expert and that the case has merit. What if the basis for your claim is that a doctor was supposed to perform a consultation in a hospital and failed to do so leading to paralysis in your client. Do you still have to file the Certificate of Merit? The safe thing to do is to pay the expert and get the Certificate of Merit to avoid headaches and cover your tail. But, if you wanted to fight this issue out, why do you need an expert? An expert is supposed to help jurors understand something beyond lay people’s comprehension. In this situation, a doctor requested help from a surgeon. The surgeon failed to follow up and the patient was paralyzed. Is that beyond the jury’s comprehension? Well, certainly the being asked to do something and failing to do it is not beyond comprehension. But, the resulting injury is surely in need of some expert testimony. But, assuming you get that testimony elsewhere, do you need a certificate of merit to assert that a doctor failing to perform a consult is malpractice? I think one should not be needed.
Continue Reading ››
Happy Pigs Case at SCOTUS // NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL ET AL. v. ROSS
Posted on May 17, 2023 in Best of
That’s all folks or a greased pig? Stay tuned…
The great state of California in its infinite wisdom passed a law that no pork could be sold in California unless the pigs were treated humanely and housed in cages that allowed them to turn around and have a little room to do pig things. California consumes 13% of the nation’s pork but produces nearly none of it. So, California was essentially concocting a requirement that only affected out of state pork producers. The unhappy pig overlords did not want to spend their pig profits to give pigs more space. This case then ended up in the US Supreme Court where it led to a fractured verdict.
The issue here for the non-regular Supreme Court practitioner is whether one state can determine how residents of another state act if the foreign state’s actions affect the legislating state. The Court ruled that California absolutely has every right to legislate what sort of pork is sold in its state. Now, it seems like pigs will be much happier in Iowa, until they are slaughtered….
Continue Reading ››
BOTH DEAD: THE COMMON LAW MARRIAGE RULE AND THE DEAD MAN’S RULE IN PENNSYLVANIA
Posted on May 17, 2023 in Case Matters
Nice day for a dead wedding…
I have an interesting situation developing where a person is claiming that they are entitled to collect from a wrongful death lawsuit I am pursuing because they are the surviving spouse of the deceased. But the claimant and decedent were never legally married. So, they are claiming a common law marriage, which while outlawed by the Courts post 2000 or so, can still be claimed for marriages before that date. Pennsylvania courts look unfavorably on common law marriages because they are ripe for fraud and abuse, especially where there is no indicia that the couple were actually married or acting as a married couple. It is possible then that my case may end up being the death knell of the common law marriage rule if the case gets that far. I think that the PA Courts are looking for a case to get rid of common law marriage once and for all.
Continue Reading ››
Can I Sue Royal Farms?
Posted on May 17, 2023 in Uncategorized
Hello, I’m Andrew Neuwirth. Today’s topic is accidents – more specifically, slip and fall incidents, and vehicular accidents in Royal Farms parking lots. This episode focuses entirely on Royal Farms. For those who may not know, Royal Farms is a prevalent convenience store chain in our Philadelphia region, offering daily essentials like coffee and gasoline.
However, any commercial operation is not without its risks. Accidents, including ones that result in personal injury, can and do happen. This is particularly true in the congested and often chaotic parking lots, where mishaps are not rare. I’ve come across individuals who have sustained severe injuries due to falls or being hit by cars in Royal Farms parking lots. It’s important to remember that Royal Farms, like any other commercial property owner, is liable for negligence.
Would I hesitate to sue Royal Farms? Not at all. Is there a chance that juries might have a bias in favor of Royal Farms? That’s uncertain.
Continue Reading ››
Can I Sue 7-Eleven?
Posted on May 17, 2023 in Uncategorized
Greetings, I’m Andrew Neuwirth. Today, we’ll delve into the topic of accidents – specifically slip and fall incidents, as well as vehicular accidents in 7-11 parking lots. This episode is entirely focused on 7-11. For those unfamiliar, 7-11 is a widely used convenience store chain in our Philadelphia region, providing daily necessities such as coffee and car fuel.
However, with any commercial operation, there comes a certain level of risk. Accidents, including those causing personal injury, can occur. Particularly in the crowded and often chaotic parking lots, mishaps are not uncommon. I’ve come to know of individuals who have endured significant injuries due to falls or by being struck by vehicles in 7-11 parking lots. It’s crucial to understand that, like any other commercial property owner, they’re liable for their negligence.
Do I have reservations about suing 7-11? Absolutely not. Do I believe juries might be biased in favor of 7-11? That’s unclear.
Continue Reading ››
